Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42616611›Full record

ArticleJMIR dermatology2026

Efficiency and Sustainability in the Skin Cancer Excision Pathway: Life Cycle Assessment and Process Map.

Zahra Ahmed, Alexander Zargaran, Sara Moeini, Sara Sousi, David Zargaran, Ann-Marie Quigley, Norbert Kang, Afshin Mosahebi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Zahra AhmedDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7679 2000.ORCID 0000-0003-3712-5125
Alexander ZargaranDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7679 2000.ORCID 0000-0001-9588-7545
Sara MoeiniDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7679 2000.ORCID 0009-0006-9295-3440
Sara SousiDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7679 2000.ORCID 0000-0002-0494-5138
David ZargaranDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7679 2000.ORCID 0000-0002-7105-6832
Ann-Marie QuigleyDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-8241-987X
Norbert KangDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9343-8487
Afshin MosahebiDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7679 2000.ORCID 0000-0001-5940-4446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer. In secondary care, patients enter a complex pathway, often involving excision. This multistage process likely has a significant carbon footprint, which has not been previously evaluated. Objective: The aims of this study were to quantify the carbon footprint of the skin cancer excision pathway and to identify opportunities for pathway optimization to improve both sustainability and efficiency. Methods: A retrospective process mapping and life cycle analysis of 64 patients undergoing skin cancer excision were performed for patient-facing and organizational steps from diagnosis to follow-up. Estimates for carbon dioxide emissions and areas for pathway remodeling were generated. Results: The carbon footprint of a patient undergoing skin cancer excision was 118.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). The perioperative phase had the highest emissions (53.1 kgCO2eq, 44.8%), but the combined diagnostic and follow-up periods had greater emissions (65.4 kgCO2eq, 55.2%). Imaging and nuclear medicine were responsible for over a third of emissions (42.5 kgCO2eq, 35.9%). Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the carbon footprint of the secondary care skin cancer excision pathway. Multiple inefficiencies were identified, and opportunities for improvement, pathway stratification, diagnostic justification, and adoption of circular economy principles were suggested to increase sustainability and improve standards of care.

Indexed as

Carbon FootprintSkin NeoplasmsCarbon DioxideHumansRetrospective StudiesCarbon Dioxidecarbon footprintenvironmental impacthealth care pathwayslife cycle analysisskin cancersustainability

Identifiers

PMID42616611
PMCPMC13488914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.