Measuring the carbon footprint of clinical research activities: a scoping review of measurement tools and methods

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a comprehensive overview of existing carbon measurement tools and methods for clinical research, highlighting gaps and the need for standardization.

🏢実務担当者:Offers guidance on selecting appropriate carbon measurement tools for clinical research activities, balancing rigor and accessibility.

🏛政策担当者:Informs the development of consensus guidance and reporting standards for measuring emissions in clinical research, supporting healthcare decarbonization policies.

Background Healthcare contributes substantially to global greenhouse gas emissions; however, the environmental impact of clinical research activities remains poorly understood. Quantifying emissions is a necessary first step toward reducing the carbon footprint of research. Objective To map and synthesise literature measuring carbon emissions associated with clinical research activities, with a focus on research domains assessed, tools and methods used and units of measurement reported. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews guidance. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, EconBiz, GreenFile and ProQuest were searched from database inception to June 2026. Eligible studies reported measurement of carbon emissions related to clinical research activities. Data were charted and synthesised narratively. Results Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, most published between 2019 and 2025 and primarily from Europe and the UK. Studies used a wide range of tools and resources, including life cycle assessment databases, online calculators, international standards, government emission factor datasets and healthcare-specific sustainability frameworks. A clear trade-off emerged between methodological rigour and accessibility: comprehensive life cycle assessment tools required expertise and licensing, while simpler calculators enabled rapid but less precise estimates. Carbon dioxide equivalent and global warming potential over a 100-year time horizon were the dominant reporting metrics, although variation in functional units limited comparability across studies. Conclusions The methodological landscape for measuring emissions in clinical research is fragmented and lacks standardisation. Development of consensus guidance and reporting standards is needed to support consistent measurement and reduction of research-related emissions.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-119989first seen 2026-08-12 04:55:57