ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Life Cycle Assessments in Healthcare: Insights and Standardisation Needs.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Life cycle assessment is increasingly applied in healthcare, yet the healthcare-specific standardisation landscape and its relation to current practice remain unclear. This study maps existing frameworks and analyses their alignment with published healthcare LCA to identify standardisation gaps. Healthcare-specific standards and product category rules were identified through grey literature searches. Published healthcare LCA studies were quantitatively analysed and compared with the identified frameworks to assess methodological convergence and divergence. Six healthcare-specific frameworks were identified: five address medical products, one addresses services, and none cover organisational assessment. Product-level applications showed strong alignment in structural modelling elements including system boundaries and life cycle stages, while substantial heterogeneity persisted in functional unit definitions and impact assessment approaches. Service and organisational assessments showed broader variability in modelling approaches, functional units, and system boundary conceptualisations, indicating distinct modelling logics of healthcare delivery across assessment levels. Healthcare LCA practice is consistent with ISO-based principles but lacks a shared conceptual modelling logic for healthcare delivery systems. Rather than reflecting a single methodological paradigm, healthcare LCA combines product-, intervention-, pathway-, and organisational-oriented approaches. Standardisation efforts should therefore focus not only on harmonising calculation methods but also on developing healthcare-specific modelling conventions for products, services, and organisational structures.
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.