At what cost evidence synthesis? A rapid response to Lyle et al. (2009) “Carbon cost of pragmatic randomised controlled trials: retrospective analysis of sample of trials”
CCBYNCOpen access
Rapid response to:
Research
Carbon cost of pragmatic randomised controlled trials: retrospective analysis of sample of trials
At what cost evidence synthesis? A rapid response to Lyle et al. (2009) “Carbon cost of pragmatic randomised controlled trials: retrospective analysis of sample of trials”
The carbon cost of conducting randomised controlled trials, estimated
by Lyle et al (1) highlights the need to ensure that existing research is
used to the full. As discussed by Chalmers & Glasziou (2), a number of
questions of importance to clinicians and patients could potentially be
answered using existing evidence. Adopting such an approach may help
reduce carbon emissions associated with the production of research
evidence.
Based on the methods reported by Lyle et al., we have estimated the
carbon footprint of 14 evidence synthesis projects currently ongoing
within the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology
Assessment (NIHR, HTA) programme portfolio. Data were taken from research
management records held at NETSCC. Data were collected on the number of
full-time equivalent staff on the project, IT equipment procured for the
project and any national and/or international travel undertaken by the
project team. It was assumed that, as the projects were evidence synthesis
studies (including systematic reviews and economic modelling studies),
work would be ‘desk-based’. CO2 emissions were calculated for energy use
at study centres, for staff commuting to and from the study centres and
for additional national and international travel to meetings and
conferences.
Results from this analysis are reported in Table 1. We estimate that
the average CO2 emission generated by an evidence synthesis project is
10.06 tonnes, 12.8 % that of a clinical trial and the equivalent saving of
taking 27 cars off the road. From an environmental perspective, our
findings support the argument that new clinical trials should not be
undertaken without fully exploiting existing evidence.
References
1 Lyle K, Dent L, Bailey S, Kerridge L, Roberts R, Milne R. Carbon
cost of pragmatic randomised controlled trials: retrospective analysis of
sample of trials. BMJ 2009;339:b4187.
2 Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and
reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-89. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(09)60329-9.
Competing interests:
None declared
Table 1: CO2 emissions estimated for evidence synthesis projects
Rapid Response:
At what cost evidence synthesis? A rapid response to Lyle et al. (2009) “Carbon cost of pragmatic randomised controlled trials: retrospective analysis of sample of trials”
The carbon cost of conducting randomised controlled trials, estimated
by Lyle et al (1) highlights the need to ensure that existing research is
used to the full. As discussed by Chalmers & Glasziou (2), a number of
questions of importance to clinicians and patients could potentially be
answered using existing evidence. Adopting such an approach may help
reduce carbon emissions associated with the production of research
evidence.
Based on the methods reported by Lyle et al., we have estimated the
carbon footprint of 14 evidence synthesis projects currently ongoing
within the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology
Assessment (NIHR, HTA) programme portfolio. Data were taken from research
management records held at NETSCC. Data were collected on the number of
full-time equivalent staff on the project, IT equipment procured for the
project and any national and/or international travel undertaken by the
project team. It was assumed that, as the projects were evidence synthesis
studies (including systematic reviews and economic modelling studies),
work would be ‘desk-based’. CO2 emissions were calculated for energy use
at study centres, for staff commuting to and from the study centres and
for additional national and international travel to meetings and
conferences.
Results from this analysis are reported in Table 1. We estimate that
the average CO2 emission generated by an evidence synthesis project is
10.06 tonnes, 12.8 % that of a clinical trial and the equivalent saving of
taking 27 cars off the road. From an environmental perspective, our
findings support the argument that new clinical trials should not be
undertaken without fully exploiting existing evidence.
References
1 Lyle K, Dent L, Bailey S, Kerridge L, Roberts R, Milne R. Carbon
cost of pragmatic randomised controlled trials: retrospective analysis of
sample of trials. BMJ 2009;339:b4187.
2 Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and
reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-89. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(09)60329-9.
Competing interests:
None declared
Table 1: CO2 emissions estimated for evidence synthesis projects
Competing interests: Number Study type Total cost (£) Total CO2 (tonnes) CO2 per year (tonnes) CO2 per £ spent (kg) CO2 per WTE staff (tonnes)1 Systematic review 143,150 7.23 4.82 0.050 7.232 Systematic review 258,234 8.77 5.85 0.034 3.643 Systematic review 106,655 6.34 6.34 0.059 3.734 Evidence synthesis 181,039 7.48 6.41 0.041 3.175 Evidence synthesis 277,203 10.57 5.29 0.038 6.616 Evidence synthesis 111,572 6.32 6.32 0.057 2.447 Evidence synthesis 281,013 33.02 22.01 0.118 15.158 Evidence synthesis 161,065 6.38 5.89 0.040 3.169 Evidence synthesis 178,793 6.13 6.13 0.034 3.4110 Systematic review 244,441 8.15 5.43 0.033 3.5411 Systematic review 91,015 2.85 2.85 0.031 2.6112 Systematic review 200,276 12.20 12.20 0.061 5.2813 Evidence synthesis 237,747 20.97 10.49 0.088 6.6614 Evidence synthesis 159,652 4.37 3.50 0.027 3.47 Average 187,990 10.06 7.39 0.051 5.01