Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42707829›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2026

From carbon cost to climate care: Greening our intensive care units.

Sargam Goel, Sahil Kataria, Deven Juneja

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 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

3 authors.

Sargam GoelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi 110020, India.
Sahil KatariaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi 110025, India.
Deven JunejaInstitute of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi 110017, India. devenjuneja@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare systems are major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, with intensive care units (ICUs) among the most carbon-intensive environments due to continuous energy demand, extensive reliance on single-use medical devices, and high pharmaceutical consumption. This narrative review examines the environmental footprint of ICUs, synthesising contemporary life-cycle evidence and international case studies describing feasible and clinically safe sustainability interventions in critical care. We outline practical strategies for ICU decarbonisation, including energy-efficient infrastructure, sustainable procurement, waste reduction, digital optimisation, and re-evaluation of low-value clinical practices. Importantly, many of these interventions align with established quality-improvement principles and are associated with clinical co-benefits such as reduced iatrogenic harm, improved patient comfort, and enhanced staff wellbeing. Broader policy frameworks, including the Sustainable Development Goals and national net-zero healthcare commitments, are discussed as enabling levers for system-level adoption. Greening ICUs should therefore be viewed not as a competing priority, but as an opportunity to deliver safer, more resilient, and patient-centred critical care while advancing planetary health.

Indexed as

Carbon footprintClimate changeCritical careDecarbonisationEnvironmental sustainabilityGreen intensive care unitHospital wasteIntensive care unitSustainable healthcare

Identifiers

PMID42707829
PMCPMC13548164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.