ArticleBJU international2026
Comparative 30-day life cycle assessment of bladder drainage strategies.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the most environmentally sustainable urinary drainage strategies commonly used to manage bladder outlet obstruction and also to highlight actionable levers for reducing the footprint of urinary drainage in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of three urinary drainage strategies (i.e., indwelling urinary catheter, clean intermittent self-catheterisation [CISC], and temporary urethral stent) over a 30-day period, in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. Primary data were collected via device disassembly and manufacturer consultation, with secondary data from the Ecoinvent version 3.9 database (Ecoinvent, Zurich, Switzerland). Impacts were modelled using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 method across 13 categories. Sensitivity analyses tested care delivery parameters and reusable catheters for CISC.
resultsThe mean climate change impact over 30 days was 96.5 kg CO
conclusionsDevice choice and care delivery models critically affect the environmental footprint of urinary drainage strategies. This study provides further strong arguments for promoting existing alternatives to the indwelling urinary catheter.
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.