Carbon emissions associated with clinical trials: a scoping review
臨床試験に伴う炭素排出:スコーピングレビュー (AI 翻訳)
Frank You, Taylor Coffey, Daniel Powell, Paula Williamson, Katie Gillies
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本レビューは、臨床試験に関連する炭素排出の測定方法と主要な排出源を体系的に調査した。22件の文献を分析し、旅行、施設、サンプル管理が主要な排出源であることを特定。測定方法の多様性が比較を困難にしているが、排出削減戦略の必要性が強調されている。
English
This scoping review synthesizes evidence on carbon emissions from clinical trials, analyzing 22 articles. Key hotspots include travel, facilities, and sample lifecycle. Variability in measurement methods hinders comparison, but the need for mitigation strategies is emphasized.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の医療機関や製薬企業にとって、臨床試験の脱炭素はESG報告や投資家対応の新たな論点となり得る。SSBJ開示ではScope 3排出の算定が求められ、臨床試験の排出削減は競争力向上につながる可能性がある。
In the global GX context
Globally, this review aligns with growing attention to healthcare's carbon footprint. It supports ISSB and CSRD disclosure requirements by highlighting measurement challenges and hotspots, offering a basis for developing standardized carbon accounting in clinical research.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a comprehensive overview of current methods and gaps in measuring clinical trial carbon emissions.
🏢実務担当者:Identifies key carbon hotspots in clinical trials, aiding healthcare organizations in targeting reduction efforts.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for standardized measurement and mitigation strategies in healthcare decarbonization policies.
📄 Abstract(原文)
OBJECTIVES: To review and synthesize available evidence on carbon emissions associated with clinical trials to inform future research on design and delivery of greener trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review by following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid) from January 1, 2007, to April 15, 2024, with no geographic and language restrictions complemented by forward and backward citation analysis (snowballing). We included all types of research literature within the context of clinical trials reporting any aspect related to trial specific carbon emissions. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were identified as eligible and included in the review. Most included studies (n = 17, 77%) were published between 2020 and 2024. Over half of the included studies (n = 13, 59%) were primary research articles with the majority reporting carbon audits of trials and their associated processes. The remaining literature comprised secondary studies (n = 3, 14%) and opinion pieces (n = 6, 27%). Diverse and evolving approaches to studying trial-related carbon emissions were identified alongside several carbon hotspots including those associated with trial-related travel, trial facilities, and sample lifecycle. CONCLUSION: The literature on carbon emissions associated with clinical trials has focused on studies reporting carbon audits of trials and their associated processes. Efforts have been made to quantify the trial carbon output with variability in methods and carbon output. Despite the development and evolution of carbon measurement tools, strategies to mitigate trial specific carbon emissions are still much in need. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Clinical trials are important to the development of medicine and health care but they have great unintended environmental impacts, especially in the form of carbon emissions. We looked at the literature to understand how carbon emissions generated by clinical trials were measured, which components across trials were carbon heavy, and what could be done to reduce the carbon output of clinical trials. We found 22 relevant articles of which 13 were primary research studies. Twelve of these primary studies measured carbon output of a range of trials. Their results varied considerably because of the variability of a host of factors, such as the number of trials analyzed, trial duration, geographical scope, trial processes measured and methods for quantifying carbon emissions. Despite varied definitions of carbon hotspots, several trial activities, including trial-related travels and meetings, trial facilities, and sample and laboratory activities, were found to be carbon heavy across studies. The remaining primary research surveyed the awareness of trial carbon impact. The rest of the 22 articles consist of three secondary research studies and six opinion papers. All of them called for attention to the carbon emissions of clinical trials and offered recommendations for reducing the carbon footprint of trials. This review identified evidence that was dedicated to measuring carbon footprint of clinical trials. Despite the challenge to compare their results because of their different approaches to carbon measurement, several carbon intensive trial processes were found to be common across studies. We still require research on how to minimize the carbon output of clinical trials.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111733first seen 2026-08-02 16:49:12
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録(無料・3キーワードまで)。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。