The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 46 of the 133 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations
Open accessAbstract
Systematic review finding operating theatres are 3-6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and that major hotspots include electricity use and procurement of consumables.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 No full text of the sources · 14 No basis given · 12 Partly supported · 12 Sources not found · 11 Not checked yet · 10 Own result · 9 Supported so far · 8 Own interpretation · 7 Supported · 7 Own method · 2 Mixed support · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“By contrast, four studies (7,27,33,34) found procurement to be the largest hotspot”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Analysis of contributions to overall carbon footprints and carbon hotspots
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. source
In the Discussion section, “Impacts in the Supply Chain: Packaging and Purchasing” (page not available), the paper says single-use materials and tools accounted for a majority of impacts in nearly every category, chiefly through their production. This supports citing the hysterectomy study as one in which procurement-related impacts were the largest hotspot; it does not independently establish the findings of the other three cited studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye. 2013;27(4):495-501. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] 33. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158-S64. source
- Disputedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Lifecycle Assessment Results; page not available in our copy) identify sterilization of reusable instruments—not procurement—as the dominant source of emissions in this study. The Discussion says procurement accounts for over 50% of the UK cataract-surgery carbon footprint, but distinguishes that comparison from the study’s Aravind findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“and one(7) did not state either.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experimental Methods specify the study’s system boundaries, from when the patient enters the operating room until she leaves. The Monte Carlo Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty section also explicitly states an exclusion: recycling impacts were omitted from that analysis and added to the post-analysis results. The claim that the paper stated neither assumptions nor exclusions is therefore contrary to our copy (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The relative contributions of each of these components is disputed, (12,26,27)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] 12. MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2017;1(9):e381-e8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (p. 6) compares the relative contributions of emissions sources across three hospitals and reports a marked difference in anaesthetic-gas emissions. It does not say that the contributions are disputed; variation between sites is not evidence of a dispute. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye. 2013;27(4):495-501. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Previous reviews of the environmental sustainability of operating theatres have mostly focused on waste management strategies, encouraging reduction, reuse and recycling (alongside 'rethinking' and research).(23,24)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [23] 23. Kagoma Y, Stall N, Rubinstein E, Naudie D. People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating rooms. CMAJ. 2012;184(17):1905-11. source
The paper is an analysis of greening operating rooms that gives substantial attention to waste management. Its “The 5 R’s” section explicitly identifies reduce, reuse and recycle as cornerstone strategies and adds rethink and research. It therefore supports the cited characterization as an example of this focus, though it does not measure what proportion of earlier reviews shared it. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Guetter CR, Williams BJ, Slama E, Arrington A, Henry MC, Möller MG, et al. Greening the operating room. Am J Surg. 2018. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In two studies where electricity use was broken down, the highest consumption of electricity was for maintaining the theatre environment (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).(7,31)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Analysis of contributions to overall carbon footprints and carbon hotspots
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy; page unavailable) says operating-room HVAC caused over 70% of energy impacts, more than the reported contribution from electricity for operating-room machines. That supports HVAC as the leading energy-related contributor in this study, but the passage measures environmental impacts rather than directly reporting that HVAC consumed the most electricity. The other study cited in the sentence is outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (§2.1) separately estimate machinery, lighting, and HVAC energy use for delivery rooms, including an operating room. Results (§3.3) say those loads collectively contributed the highest percentage to several environmental impacts, but do not establish that HVAC alone consumed the most electricity. This paper also cannot substantiate the claim about both cited studies. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“concluding that hysterectomies in the USA generate 212,000 tonnes CO2e per year (~285-562 kg CO2e per operation) (7)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) estimates about 212,000 metric tons of CO2-eq per year for U.S. hysterectomies, projected from 500,000 annual cases. The Results discuss emissions per case and variation by surgical approach, but the passages in our copy do not substantiate the stated range of approximately 285–562 kg CO2e per operation. (LLM, conf=0.87)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“and not reported at all in one.(31)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (section 2.1.2; page unavailable) describe collecting hospital data but do not state how many observations were collected. Another Methods passage gives approximately 15,000 births reviewed for an assumed birth duration, citing a different study; that is not a count of this study’s observations. The passages do not establish the categorical claim that this study reported no observation or data-point count at all (searched for sample size, observations, and data points). (LLM, conf=0.67)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“two (31,34) finding this affected results minimally”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 (page unavailable) reports that changing the assumed lifespan of reusable surgical packs had a negligible effect on results. This supports a minimal effect for that specific assumption, but not for scenario uncertainty generally. The citation is one of two attached to the citing sentence, so this verdict addresses only this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. source
The Materials and Methods section reports a sensitivity analysis using an alternative lifecycle impact assessment method: greenhouse gas estimates matched exactly, and relative impacts matched in several categories. The Discussion says the alternative method produced results on par with the primary method, supporting the claim that this tested uncertainty had little effect on the results. The cited paper accounts for one of the two studies mentioned, not both. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged from 6 (for cataract surgery in India) (34) to 814 kg CO2e, (for a robotic hysterectomy in the US),( 7)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. source
The citation to this paper is attached to the 6 kg CO2e figure for cataract surgery in India, not the 814 kg figure for robotic hysterectomy. The Results (Lifecycle Assessment Results) report 6 kg CO2-equivalents per phacoemulsification at Aravind in India. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy; page unavailable) report that robotic hysterectomy had the largest average environmental footprint among the hysterectomy types studied in the US. Our copy does not state the cited figure of 814 kg CO2e per operation. The cataract-surgery figure is attached to a different citation and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and b) procurement of consumables, (27,34)”
- Also stated in: § Optimising use of consumable items · plain
“Two studies identified that consumables are a major carbon hotspot within operations.(27,34)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye. 2013;27(4):495-501. source
- Partly supportedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that procurement of supplies accounts for over 50% of the UK phacoemulsification carbon footprint, supporting its importance in that setting. But the Results identify sterilization of reusable instruments—not consumables—as the largest emissions source at the facility studied, so the paper does not establish procurement as a major carbon hotspot across operating theatres generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Optimising use of consumable items · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“with three (7,33,34) specifically identifying single-use items to be largest contributors, responsible for up to 78% of the carbon footprint”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Analysis of contributions to overall carbon footprints and carbon hotspots
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Impacts in the Supply Chain: Packaging and Purchasing; page unavailable) says single-use materials and tools accounted for a majority of environmental impacts in nearly every category. It does not give a 78% share of the carbon footprint; the Results (Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy; page unavailable) instead say anesthetic gases contributed about two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions for abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. This paper also does not establish that two of the three cited studies used the same dataset. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] 33. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158-S64. source
- Disputedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Lifecycle Assessment Results; page unavailable) identify reusable instruments and their sterilization—not single-use items—as responsible for more than half of emissions in most impact categories. Single-use materials contribute the largest share only to ozone depletion. The paper does not report that they account for up to 78% of the carbon footprint. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Operating rooms make a large contribution to the healthcare carbon footprint as they are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital.(7,8)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. source
The Introduction states that the operating room is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital and that understanding surgery’s environmental impact is critical to understanding healthcare-related emissions. This supports the citing sentence’s qualitative claim; no page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes. Waste Manag. 2002;22(5):461-70. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“and are three to six times more energy intensive than the rest of the hospital which can be largely attributed to maintenance of the theatre environment (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).(12)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] 12. MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2017;1(9):e381-e8. source
The Summary (p. 2) states that theatres were three to six times more energy-intensive than the hospital as a whole, primarily because of heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning requirements. The Results (p. 5) give the underlying hospital-to-theatre comparison, and the Discussion (p. 7) reports that HVAC accounted for 90–99% of theatre energy use. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Hybrid methods exist which attempt either to incorporate the detail of the process-based approach alongside inclusivity of EEIO models, or which use top-down approaches for attributable components for which process data cannot be obtained.(19,21)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] 19. Berners-Lee M, Howard DC, Moss J, Kaivanto K, Scott WA. Greenhouse gas footprinting for small businesses-the use of input-output data. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(5):883-91. source
- Partly supportedcites [21] 21. Pomponi F, Lenzen M. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) will likely yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;176:210-5. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5 describes coupling multiregional input-output databases to process-based LCA, supporting the claim that hybrid methods combine the two approaches. The Conclusions discuss process-based truncation errors, but the passages do not say that hybrid methods use top-down estimates specifically for components whose process data cannot be obtained. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Five studies used a hybrid approach, using both EEIO and process-based methodologies, of which three termed this an 'economic-' or 'environment input-output life cycle assessment (EIOLCA)' (7,33,34) and one a 'component analysis study'.(27)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] 33. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158-S64. source
- Partly supportedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye. 2013;27(4):495-501. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Three studies exclusively used 'bottom-up' process-based approaches, of which one simply described their method as a 'carbon footprint',(35) one described it as a 'multi-component analysis/carbon footprint', (26) and the other conducted full LCA.(31)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
- Supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. source
Citation (31) supports the part of the sentence identifying this study as a process-based LCA; it is not being cited for the descriptions of the other two studies. The Methods section describes a process LCA framework with hospital-level inventory data and life cycle impact assessment. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“There is debate between the relative accuracy and value of top-down and bottom-up approaches.(21)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [21] 21. Pomponi F, Lenzen M. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) will likely yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;176:210-5. source
The Conclusions (page unavailable) explicitly describe a debate over whether hybrid LCA produces more accurate results than process-based LCA. The paper also compares their errors and discusses the merits of the input-output and process systems involved, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of a debate over approaches. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Published emission factors can be applied, which provide average emissions for given attributable processes (for example electricity consumption, transportation, and production of a given material).This enables detailed analysis with high specificity, allowing comparison between items from the same sector.(20)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [20] 20. Kennelly C, Berners-Lee M, Hewitt C. Hybrid life-cycle assessment for robust, best- practice carbon accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;208:35-43. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.2 describes process-based carbon accounting as an itemised estimate of emissions at each step of a product’s life cycle, supporting the detailed-analysis part of the claim. Section 4.1 also discusses calculated emission factors. The passages do not establish that applying published average factors provides high specificity or enables comparisons between items within the same sector; those parts are unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.79)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Three studies used primary process activity data only, (26,31,35) one used secondary financial activity data only (32) and all others used a mixture of data types (Supplementary Table 3).(7,27,33,34)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Variation in data collected, allocation method and method for calculating inventory results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
- Supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. source
The citation to this paper is attached to the group described as using a mixture of data types, not to the counts of studies using only one type. In Methods §2.1.2 (page unavailable), the paper describes collecting activity data at the hospital and using published life-cycle inventory databases for unit processes, supporting its classification as a mixed-data study. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
- Not matchedcites [32] 32. Gatenby PA. Modelling the carbon footprint of reflux control. Int J Surg. 2011;9(1):72-4.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. source
The Experimental Methods section identifies this study as a hybrid LCA using both process and economic input-output data. The Waste Audit section describes primary data collection, while Hybrid LCA Approach describes financial inputs evaluated with an EIO-LCA model. This supports classifying the cited study among those using a mixture of data types; it does not establish the counts for the other studies. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye. 2013;27(4):495-501. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] 33. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158-S64. source
- Supportedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. source
The Data Collection section describes primary process data gathered through observation, measurement, and hospital records. The Lifecycle Assessment section also describes using financial spending data in an economic input-output model for pharmaceuticals. This supports classifying this study as using a mixture of data types; the counts of other studies are not claims this source alone can establish. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Campion et al. (31) found that the carbon footprint of a caesarean section is twice that of a vaginal delivery.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 (page not provided) says cesarean births have a higher environmental footprint than vaginal births. The Results and Discussion discuss global warming potential for both delivery modes, but the passages do not give a two-to-one carbon-footprint comparison. The claimed magnitude is therefore unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Allocation methods were explicitly stated by four studies.(7,31,33,34)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Variation in data collected, allocation method and method for calculating inventory results
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. source
The Life Cycle Inventory section (page unavailable) explicitly states how impacts from reusable linens were allocated and gives an estimated lifespan for reusable stainless steel instruments. This supports citing this paper as one of the studies that stated an allocation method; the total of four refers to the citing document’s set of studies, not a count this paper needs to establish. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. source
The Methods section (2.1, page not provided) explicitly describes an allocation choice for autoclave electricity and assumes 10 kits per cycle. It also states that the weight of mixed-material products was divided evenly among their materials. This supports identifying this paper as a study that stated its allocation methods; the other three studies are outside this citation. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] 33. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158-S64. source
- Supportedcites [34] 34. Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, Ravindran RD, Robin AL, Saeedi OJ, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(11):1391-8. source
The Materials and Methods > Data Collection section explicitly describes how water, ventilation, sterilization electricity, and diesel-generator emissions were allocated to a phacoemulsification case. This supports citing the paper as one study that stated its allocation methods; the count of four is the citing document’s synthesis across its cited studies. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Three studies (26,31,35) found electricity to be the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 63-78% of the carbon footprint of whole operations”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Analysis of contributions to overall carbon footprints and carbon hotspots
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
- Partly supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion section reports that machines, lighting, and HVAC contributed the largest share of global warming potential for both delivery modes. It attributes those impacts to electricity and natural gas together, not electricity alone. The passages do not give a 63–78% share or assess whole operations rather than individual births (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“results of average operations were in keeping with included studies, with emissions of 146 kg CO2e per average case at the Canadian hospital, compared with 173 kg CO2e in the UK, and 232 kg CO2e in the US.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] 12. MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2017;1(9):e381-e8. source
The Results (p. 6) give the same per-operation emissions: 146 kg CO2e at VGH, 173 kg at JRH, and 232 kg at UMMC. The Summary (p. 2) identifies those hospitals as the Canadian, UK, and US sites, respectively. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“MacNeill et al. calculated and compared the carbon footprint of whole operating suites across one year in three large hospitals in the UK, Canada and US, (12) finding this ranged between 3,219-5,188 tonnes CO2e.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] 12. MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2017;1(9):e381-e8. source
The Summary (p. 2) describes a one-year study of surgical suites at three hospitals in Canada, the USA, and the UK. The Results (p. 6) give annual footprints of 3,218,907 to 5,187,936 kg CO₂e, which round to 3,219–5,188 tonnes CO₂e. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Parameter uncertainty (uncertainty relating to the data collection or emissions factors) was calculated by two studies.(7,35)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman J, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-86. source
The Experimental Methods section, under “Monte Carlo Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty” (page not provided), says the study used Monte Carlo analysis to account for uncertainty in life cycle inventory data and sampled distributions of materials and their impacts. This supports identifying this paper as one of the studies that calculated parameter uncertainty; the other cited study is outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“One study reported only descriptive or graphical data.(31)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] 31. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:191- 8. source
The Results and Discussion sections present the environmental-impact findings in figures and descriptive comparisons, including references to Figures 2, 3, and 5. Section 3.2 also gives some percentages in prose, so “only descriptive or graphical data” is accurate as a characterization of how the findings are reported, not a claim that the paper contains no numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
In the paper
“A 'top-down' EEIO was used exclusively by one study (35) but was referred to as a 'carbon footprint'.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Screening of titles excluded 4,381 of these and of the remaining 223, 83 were duplicates, leaving 140 articles for full text evaluation.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The search strategy identified 4,604 records (Figure 1).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these, four were conducted exclusively in the US, (7,31,33,35) two in the UK, (27,32), one in Chile (26), and one in India (Table 1).(34)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other studies did not specify the number of GHGs included, (7,31,(33)(34)(35) although this can be deduced (bracketed in Table 1) based on the guidelines or databases used.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The functional unit of all included studies were individual operations.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Four studies (7,31,33,34) reported following ISO guidelines,(16) one(35) following the GHG Protocol(14) and two (27,35) using PAS 2050 guidelines.(15)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2006.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. World Resources Institute. Greenhouse gas protocol, product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. USA: World Resources Institute; 2011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [15] 15. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. UK: Department for Business Innovation and Skills; 2011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four studies examined operations in the field of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, (7,31,33,35) two Ophthalmological operations, (27,34) one Gastrointestinal, (32), and one Plastic surgery.(26)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“With regards to the scope of GHGs included, two studies calculated CO2 emissions only.(26,32)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
- Not matchedcites [32] 32. Gatenby PA. Modelling the carbon footprint of reflux control. Int J Surg. 2011;9(1):72-4.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two studies did not state the use of guidelines.(26,32)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
- Not matchedcites [32] 32. Gatenby PA. Modelling the carbon footprint of reflux control. Int J Surg. 2011;9(1):72-4.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However none of these studies considered any processes beyond the theatre boundary, and did not take into account the impact different surgical approaches have on length of stay, infection rate and need for further intervention (all with associated carbon dioxide emissions).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gatenby (32) found that the carbon footprint of surgical approaches to gastrooesophageal reflux disease treatment is higher than medical treatment up to nine years after the operation, but becomes more carbon efficient thereafter, following patients up until end of life.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32] 32. Gatenby PA. Modelling the carbon footprint of reflux control. Int J Surg. 2011;9(1):72-4.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“(35) found that the most carbon intensive approach to gynaecological surgery was robotic, followed by the laparoscopic approach, followed by laparotomy (followed by trans-vaginal approach within the former study).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A range of data sources were used for emission factors and GWPs.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Variation in data collected, allocation method and method for calculating inventory results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of studies omitted pre-and post-operative processes, patient and staff travel, capital goods manufacture, water use, processing of reusable equipment (all scope three), and pharmaceuticals (including scope one anaesthetics gases).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Variation in inventory boundaries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“whilst another(36) finding this varied results by 0.3-19%.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] 36. Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments-a scissors case. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2013;18:1137-48. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carbon footprinting can be used as a tool to model the relative impact of different measures aimed at reducing the GHG emissions of operative services, based upon existing variation in surgical care and hypothetical interventions.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LCA is an inclusive measure but the endpoints are numerous and vary with the approaches and data sources used, reducing the extent to which direct comparisons can be made between studies.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The first is a 'top-down' environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) model, which uses the monetary cost of a unit of interest to estimate the carbon footprint, on the premise that more expensive items involve greater resource use, with higher associated GHG emissions.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] 13. Berners-Lee M. How bad are bananas; the carbon footprint of everything. London: Profile Books; 2010.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [17] 17. World Resources Institute. Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. USA: World Resources Institute; 2013.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Estimating the carbon footprint of surgical operations enables their GHG emissions to be quantified, and perhaps more importantly, allows the identification and targeting of carbon hotspots (largest GHG contributors) within surgery.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies were appraised independently by two researchers (CR, IS) using the system detailed in Supplementary Table 2, and discrepancies were discussed and resolved.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Evaluation of quality and applicability of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where processes are omitted, this underestimates the carbon footprint of a given process.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Evaluation of carbon footprint
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The alternative 'bottom-up' process-based method involves collecting data on all the component processes underpinning the unit of interest.(13,17)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] 13. Berners-Lee M. How bad are bananas; the carbon footprint of everything. London: Profile Books; 2010.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [17] 17. World Resources Institute. Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. USA: World Resources Institute; 2013.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is relatively inexpensive and simple to perform,(17) but lacks specificity and detail, and should not be used for comparing the carbon footprint of products from within the same industrial sector.(19)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17] 17. World Resources Institute. Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. USA: World Resources Institute; 2013.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] 19. Berners-Lee M, Howard DC, Moss J, Kaivanto K, Scott WA. Greenhouse gas footprinting for small businesses-the use of input-output data. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(5):883-91. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite limitations, a given carbon footprinting methodology can be used to identify hotspots and evaluate alternatives if it is consistently applied within a study.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is often difficult to obtain data on processes beyond the boundary of the hospital under investigation, and the inventory boundary could always be expanded, (e.g. to include higher tier supporting industries such as research and development, or even the food eaten by theatre staff).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Evaluation of carbon footprint
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data were extracted independently by two authors (CR, IS).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The EEIO approach incorporates all emission sources from upstream processes in the supply chain (either direct or indirect, and including flow between sectors), taking into account 'hidden' sectors such as marketing, and research and development (e.g.behind the drugs administered during an operation).(18)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18] 18. Minx J, Wiedmann T, Barrett J and Suh S. Methods review to support the PAS for the calculation of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. London: Stockholm Environment Institute and University of Minnesota; 2008.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these reviews are predominantly based on low level evidence such as opinion reports, and included studies using a wide variety of methods to measure environmental sustainability (e.g.weight of waste, volume of water, and cost).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (28) and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, ID 109928).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > METHODS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28] 28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, this method is resource intensive and requires study boundaries to be carefully defined, resulting in 'truncation error' due to the omission of certain processes, or where the so called 'hidden' sectors are overlooked.(17)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17] 17. World Resources Institute. Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. USA: World Resources Institute; 2013.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The search was conducted independently by two authors (CR, RN).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main value of estimating a carbon footprint via an EEIO method is for the rapid identification of hotspots, indicating where it may be useful to perform a more detailed carbon footprint.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other investigators have recommended adding in reprocessing of single-use devices (processing to allow for additional use(s)), environmentally preferable procurement, and energy consumption management.(25)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] 25. Kwakye G, Brat GA, Makary MA. Green surgical practices for health care. Arch Surg. 2011;146(2):131-6. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heterogeneity in functional units, methodology and reporting of results limits comparison across studies, and means meta-analysis is inappropriate.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Variation in data collected, allocation method and method for calculating inventory results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The carbon footprint of different operations will vary, and are likely to be dependent upon the invasiveness of the procedure, patient factors, and the surgical team, which will each impact on operative time and consumables used.(35)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(4):406-12. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This variation may be due to differences in methods and boundaries, but is also affected by the type of operation and the institution where it is performed.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Carbon footprint of operations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where studies used secondary financial activity data within an EEIO model, this incorporates all three scopes of GHG emissions where relevant.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Variation in data collected, allocation method and method for calculating inventory results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No study stated a clear hypothesis, increasing risk of post-hoc analysis and selective reporting.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Quality and applicability of studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas use of reusable rather than disposable items is a good general principle, this preference is context specific and may not be universal.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Optimising use of consumable items
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Improving the energy efficiency of USA hospitals by 30% has been estimated could save $1 billion and a reduction in carbon emissions of 11 million tonnes.(39)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Optimising electricity use in theatres
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39] 39. Healthcare without Harm. Health care's climate footprint climate-smart health care series green paper number one. Healthcare without Harm and ARUP; 2019.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A life cycle assessment study examining seven single use medical devices (including endoscopic trocars, ligasure, arthroscopic shavers and ultrasonic scalpels) found that reprocessed devices conferred lower global warming impacts alongside financial benefits.(51)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] 51. Farrelly JS, Clemons C, Witkins S, Hall W, Christison-Lagay ER, Ozgediz DE, et al. Surgical tray optimization as a simple means to decrease perioperative costs. J Surg Res. 2017;220:320-6. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“hence changing processes to only open equipment when needed could bring financial as well as carbon savings.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [53] 53. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Improving quality and efficiency in the operating theatre. Coventry: NHS; 2009.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Berner et al.(26) found that an abdominoplasty had a greater carbon footprint than rhinoplasty, which in turn was greater than bilateral breast augmentation.”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, Chapman T, Vidal P. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: A preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(12):1777-9. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thiel et al. (33) modelled that the carbon footprint of a hysterectomy operation could be reduced by up to 83%, through optimising the instrument tray via minimal materials and maximum reuse(49%), switching anaesthesia to intravenous anaesthesia with propofol or similar agents (28%), and using renewable energy (6%).”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Overall potential
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] 33. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158-S64. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The principal components making up the carbon footprint of an operating theatre are hospital infrastructure, capital machinery, maintenance of the theatre environment, electronic equipment energy, water, anaesthetic gases, pharmaceuticals, and reusable and disposable items.
“The principle components making up the carbon footprint of an operating theatre are the hospital infrastructure, capital machinery, maintenance of the theatre environment (heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, lighting), electronic equipment energy, water, anaesthetic gases, pharmaceuticals, and reusable and disposable items.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A carbon footprinting study is most reflective of true emissions when all processes attributable to the functional unit from all three scopes are included.
“A carbon footprinting study is most reflective of true emissions where all processes attributable to the functional unit (from all three scopes) are included.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are three major sources of uncertainty within carbon footprint studies: parameter uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and model uncertainty.
“There are three major sources of uncertainty within carbon footprint studies, and each of these were considered.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hotspots will vary in different settings and with different operations.
“and hotspots will vary in different settings and with different operations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Improving the environmental impact of surgery often leads to financial benefits.
“Improving the environmental impact of surgery often leads to financial benefits and these should be reported alongside surgical carbon footprints”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Five studies used a hybrid approach, using both EEIO and process-based methodologies”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
Reported 8 · recomputed 9
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
“Three studies exclusively used 'bottom-up' process-based approaches, of which one simply described their method as a 'carbon footprint',(35)”
§ The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review > Study selection
“A 'top-down' EEIO was used exclusively by one study (35)”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
International Organization for Standardization
(2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_16847 · Cited by 12,504
Managing the health effects of climate change
Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., Friel, S., Groce, N., Johnson, A., Kett, M., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60935-1 · Cited by 3,102
Environmental impacts of the U.S. health care system and effects on public health
Eckelman, M. J., & Sherman, J. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157014 · Cited by 1,017
MacNeill, A. J., Lillywhite, R., & Brown, C. J. (2017) · The Lancet Planetary Health · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30162-6 · Cited by 820
Self-citationThiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., Shrake, S. O., Copley-Woods, N., & Bilec, M. M. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es504719g · Cited by 416
Estimate of the carbon footprint of the US health care sector
Chung, J. W., & Meltzer, D. O. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1610 · Cited by 415
Sustainability in quality improvement: redefining value
Mortimer, F., Isherwood, J., Wilkinson, A., & Vaux, E. (2018) · Future Healthcare Journal · doi:10.7861/futurehosp.5-2-88 · Cited by 373
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The carbon footprint of healthcare settings: A systematic review
Rodríguez‐Jiménez, L., Romero‐Martín, M., Spruell, T., Steley, Z., & Gómez-Salgado, J. C. (2023) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.15671 · Cited by 268
de Santiago, E. R., Dinis-Ribeiro, M. J., Pohl, H., Agrawal, D., Arvanitakis, M., Baddeley, R., Bak, E., Bhandari, P., Bretthauer, M., Burga, P., et al. (2022) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-1859-3726 · Cited by 229
“However, some data are available from studies on carbon footprint reduction in the operating room [83 – 85].”
Marcus, H. J., Ramirez, P. T., Khan, D. Z., Horsfall, H. L., HANRAHAN, J. G., Williams, S. C., Beard, D. J., Bhat, R. A., Catchpole, K. C., Cook, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02732-7 · Cited by 213
Drew, J., Christie, S. D., Tyedmers, P., Smith-Forrester, J., & Rainham, D. (2021) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp8666 · Cited by 191
Valls-Val, K., & Bovea, M. D. (2021) · Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy · doi:10.1007/s10098-021-02180-2 · Cited by 157
Metadata
- Authors
- Rizan, C., Steinbach, I., Nicholson, R., Lillywhite, R., Reed, M., & Bhutta, M. F.
- Affiliations
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School (GB)
- Centre for Sustainable Healthcare (GB)
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (GB)
- University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
- Corresponding author
- Rizan, Chantelle
- Bhutta, Mahmood F.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2020-06-08
- Volume
- 272
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 986-995
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- 1528-1140
- OpenAlex
- W3014488149
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 84 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- sro.sussex.ac.uk
- Locations
- Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
- Keywords
- carbon footprint, surgical procedures, operating room, environmental impact of surgery, CO2 emissions, power consumption, surgical consumables, energy efficiency, medical waste
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Operating Rooms, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Carbon Footprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review