ArticleJMIR dermatology2026
Efficiency and Sustainability in the Skin Cancer Excision Pathway: Life Cycle Assessment and Process Map.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.