ArticleANZ journal of surgery
Green Endoscopy: Can Filtered Water Use in Endoscopy Be a Safe, Economical Alternative Which Promotes Sustainable Healthcare?
Article in ANZ journal of surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSustainable healthcare is an evolving paradigm of growing importance that focuses on reducing environmental impact whilst maintaining quality patient care. Currently, evidence is lacking to support the use of sterile water in diagnostic colonoscopy resulting in a growing shift towards use of tap water and appropriate recycling of bottles. This single centre interventional study assessed patient outcomes, quantitative water use, cost and environmental benefits during colonoscopy when using filtered tap water for irrigation.
methodsPatients who underwent a colonoscopy at this single centre in Melbourne, Australia over 3 months were included consecutively. Trained endoscopy nursing staff prepared filtered, room temperature water for all diagnostic colonoscopy procedures during this time. Quantitative measurements of volume of water per procedure were recorded electronically. Peri-procedural and post-procedural complications were retrospectively audited 1 month after the procedure.
resultsComplete patient data were collected on 133 patients between 1st February 2025 and 30th April 2025. No infective presentations/complications were recorded. Five patient complications were noted: abdominal pain, intra-operative atrial fibrillation, per-rectal bleeding and constipation. Mean water use per colonoscopy was 205 mL. The extrapolated/calculated economic savings for the health service was $5000 per annum. Carbon Footprint saving 1.37 kg CO
conclusionTap water use in endoscopy can be a safe, simple, economic alternative which promotes sustainable healthcare for the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.