ColonoscopyNCT07171853
The Carbon Footprint Study of Colonoscopy
An observational study of Colonoscopy, run by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital at 1 site in Thailand.
Trial summary
With global warming intensifying, GI endoscopy is among the top three greenhouse gas-emitting medical procedures. Colonoscopy, a cornerstone for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, significantly contributes to the carbon footprint (CF). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Colonoscopy
- How many people
- 362 participants
- Where
- 1 siteThailand
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2025to 30 Apr 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients aged 18-80 years who received a colonoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
Who may be able to join
- Patients aged 18-80 years
Who cannot join
- Patient status grade III-V according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)
- Poor bowel preparation (grade <6 in the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS])
- Endoscopic JNET type III or suspicion of malignancy
- Hematologic or coagulation disorders, Plt<140,000/mcL, INR>1.5
- anti-platelet/anticoagulant medication that could not be paused as recommended in the current guideline
- Emergency colonoscopy, GI bleeding, unstable vital sign, critical ill patient
Show all 12Show fewer
- Inflammatory bowel disease
- Pregnancy
- Severe cardiopulmonary disease
- Severe infection
- Malignancy
- History of allergy to IV sedative medication
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Carbon Footprint Study of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Various Techniques of Colonic Polypectomy
With global warming intensifying, GI endoscopy is among the top three greenhouse gas-emitting medical procedures. Colonoscopy, a cornerstone for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, significantly contributes to the carbon footprint (CF). This study quantifies CO₂ emissions in different steps of colonoscopy and evaluates the environmental impact of common polypectomy techniques to establish baseline CF data and identify opportunities for mitigation. This study included patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening. CO₂ emissions were comprehensively measured at each step of the procedure (pre-, during, and post-colonoscopy), including energy consumption, all equipment and medications, waste management, and endoscopy reprocessing. Emission data were also collected for common polypectomy techniques, including cold forceps biopsy (CFB), cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), all performed according to standard polypectomy protocols.
Read the detailed description
Global warming refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average surface temperature, primarily caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities. The carbon footprint of a colonoscopy refers to the total greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO₂ equivalents) generated throughout the procedure. While colonoscopy for colon cancer screening improves survival outcomes, it still contributes to environmental impact through energy use, medical supplies, and waste. Calculating a carbon footprint involves estimating the total greenhouse gas emissions, usually expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e).
Main formula : Carbon footprint (CO₂e) = Activity Data × Emission Factor
Carbon footprint assessment is a tool for assessing the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions from public health care processes for planning, developing and systematically improving public health systems to reduce carbon footprints leading to environmental sustainability.
Carbon footprint measurement in this study
- Volunteers underwent bowel preparation by taking laxatives until their stool appearance met the clear criteria. The amount of laxative taken was recorded.
- A nurse conducted a medical history interview using a standardized safety checklist before the colonoscopy, measured the patient's vital signs, and established intravenous access for administering medication or fluids.
- Research participants were fitted with a nasal oxygen delivery device and given intravenous sedatives to induce an appropriate level of sedation. Vital signs and fingertip oxygen saturation levels were monitored before starting the colonoscopy.
- During the colonoscopy, the nurse monitored vital signs and oxygen saturation periodically and adjusted the sedative dosage based on the patient's level of consciousness.
- Patients underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. If a colonic polyp was found, it was removed according to clinical indications and current treatment guidelines. The size of the polyp was estimated visually by comparing it with the size of the resection instrument. In the event of bleeding or perforation, endoscopic procedures were performed as indicated for treatment. During the procedure, all equipment used, the volume of water, the type and amount of sedative medication, and the duration of the colonoscopy and colonic polypectomy were recorded for subsequent carbon footprint analysis.
- The removed colonic polyp tissue was preserved in a formalin-containing specimen jar for pathological examination by a pathologist.
- After the colonoscopy, the patient was transferred to a recovery room, where vital signs were monitored periodically until the participant regained full consciousness.
- After polypectomy, the patient resumed antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications according to the timing recommended by standard clinical guidelines.
The data from the patient's intake of laxatives for bowel preparation through to the completion of the colonoscope cleaning process was recorded and analyzed to calculate the carbon footprint in collaboration with the faculty team from the Environmental Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University.
- Conditions
- Colonoscopy
- Keywords
- Carbon footprint, Colonoscopy, Colonic polypectomy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Colonoscopy | Patient receiving diagnostic colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening without therapeutic intervention | |
| Colonoscopy with colonic polypectomy | Patient receiving colonoscopy with various techniques of colonic polypectomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Carbon footprint of normal screening colonoscopy
Mean carbon footprint, expressed as kgCO₂e per procedure, calculated across the pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and post-endoscopic phases.
Measured: From bowel preparation ingestion through completion of endoscope reprocessing for each colonoscopy procedure.
Incremental carbon footprint according to colonic polypectomy technique
Mean incremental carbon footprint, expressed as kgCO₂e per resected polyp, for cold forceps biopsy, cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscopic mucosal resection.
Measured: From insertion of the polypectomy device through completion of polyp removal and specimen retrieval for each resected polyp.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Sep 2025
- Study start1 Oct 2025
- Primary completion30 Apr 2026
- Study completion30 Apr 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (22)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ColonoscopyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 362 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Rapat Pittayanon, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07171853
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RP028
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 6 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 4 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Steubing B, de Koning A, Merciai S, Tukker A. How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare? A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2022;26(4):1406-22.
Turner DA, Williams ID, Kemp S. Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2015;105:186-97.
McGinnis S, Johnson-Privitera C, Nunziato JD, Wohlford S. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment in Medical Practice: A User's Guide. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2021 Jul;76(7):417-428. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000906.
PubMed 34324694Sevigne-Itoiz E, Mwabonje O, Panoutsou C, Woods J. Life cycle assessment (LCA): informing the development of a sustainable circular bioeconomy? Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2021 Sep 20;379(2206):20200352. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0352. Epub 2021 Aug 2.
PubMed 34334023Yu X, Tan C. China's process-related greenhouse gas emission dataset 1990-2020. Sci Data. 2023 Jan 25;10(1):55. doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-01957-y.
PubMed 36697420Rodriguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H, Agrawal D, Arvanitakis M, Baddeley R, Bak E, Bhandari P, Bretthauer M, Burga P, Donnelly L, Eickhoff A, Hayee B, Kaminski MF, Karlovic K, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Pellise M, Pioche M, Siau K, Siersema PD, Stableforth W, Tham TC, Triantafyllou K, Tringali A, Veitch A, Voiosu AM, Webster GJ, Vienne A, Beilenhoff U, Bisschops R, Hassan C, Gralnek IM, Messmann H. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2022 Aug;54(8):797-826. doi: 10.1055/a-1859-3726. Epub 2022 Jul 8.
PubMed 35803275Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: An analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res. 2018 Jan;36(1):39-47. doi: 10.1177/0734242X17739968. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
PubMed 29132259Ferlitsch M, Hassan C, Bisschops R, Bhandari P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Risio M, Paspatis GA, Moss A, Libanio D, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Voiosu AM, Rutter MD, Pellise M, Moons LMG, Probst A, Awadie H, Amato A, Takeuchi Y, Repici A, Rahmi G, Koecklin HU, Albeniz E, Rockenbauer LM, Waldmann E, Messmann H, Triantafyllou K, Jover R, Gralnek IM, Dekker E, Bourke MJ. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024. Endoscopy. 2024 Jul;56(7):516-545. doi: 10.1055/a-2304-3219. Epub 2024 Apr 26.
PubMed 38670139Iwatate M, Sano Y, Tanaka S, Kudo SE, Saito S, Matsuda T, Wada Y, Fujii T, Ikematsu H, Uraoka T, Kobayashi N, Nakamura H, Hotta K, Horimatsu T, Sakamoto N, Fu KI, Tsuruta O, Kawano H, Kashida H, Takeuchi Y, Machida H, Kusaka T, Yoshida N, Hirata I, Terai T, Yamano HO, Nakajima T, Sakamoto T, Yamaguchi Y, Tamai N, Nakano N, Hayashi N, Oka S, Ishikawa H, Murakami Y, Yoshida S, Saito Y; Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET). Validation study for development of the Japan NBI Expert Team classification of colorectal lesions. Dig Endosc. 2018 Sep;30(5):642-651. doi: 10.1111/den.13065. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
PubMed 29603399The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. No abstract available.
PubMed 14652541ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Early DS, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher DA, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan KM, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Sharaf RS, Dominitz JA, Cash BD. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jun;75(6):1127-31. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.011. No abstract available.
PubMed 22624807Cunha Neves JA, Rodriguez de Santiago E, Aabakken L. Approaches for greening endoscopy and reducing waste. Gut. 2023 Nov 24;72(12):2204-2206. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330917. No abstract available.
PubMed 37977580Brown JJ, Asumeng CK, Greenwald D, Weissman M, Zauber A, Striplin J, Weng O, List JM, Farley SM, Winawer SJ. Decreased colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a diverse urban population with increased colonoscopy screening. BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 30;21(1):1280. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11330-6.
PubMed 34193094Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, Jensen CD, Zauber AG, Goodman M, Johnson JR, Mehta SJ, Becerra TA, Zhao WK, Schottinger J, Doria-Rose VP, Levin TR, Weiss NS, Fletcher RH. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018 Feb;67(2):291-298. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312712. Epub 2016 Oct 12.
PubMed 27733426Han J, Tan Z, Chen M, Zhao L, Yang L, Chen S. Carbon Footprint Research Based on Input-Output Model-A Global Scientometric Visualization Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 9;19(18):11343. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811343.
PubMed 36141618
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Carbon Footprint Study of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Various Techniques of Colonic Polypectomy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07171853
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RP028
- Conditions
- Colonoscopy
- Keywords
- Carbon footprint, Colonoscopy, Colonic polypectomy
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 362 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- King Chulalongkorn Memorial HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Apr 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
With global warming intensifying, GI endoscopy is among the top three greenhouse gas-emitting medical procedures. Colonoscopy, a cornerstone for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, significantly contributes to the carbon footprint (CF). This study quantifies CO₂ emissions in different steps of colonoscopy and evaluates the environmental impact of common polypectomy techniques to establish baseline CF data and identify opportunities for mitigation. This study included patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening. CO₂ emissions were comprehensively measured at each step of the procedure (pre-, during, and post-colonoscopy), including energy consumption, all equipment and medications, waste management, and endoscopy reprocessing. Emission data were also collected for common polypectomy techniques, including cold forceps biopsy (CFB), cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), all performed according to standard polypectomy protocols.
Detailed description
Global warming refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average surface temperature, primarily caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities. The carbon footprint of a colonoscopy refers to the total greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO₂ equivalents) generated throughout the procedure. While colonoscopy for colon cancer screening improves survival outcomes, it still contributes to environmental impact through energy use, medical supplies, and waste. Calculating a carbon footprint involves estimating the total greenhouse gas emissions, usually expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e).
Main formula : Carbon footprint (CO₂e) = Activity Data × Emission Factor
Carbon footprint assessment is a tool for assessing the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions from public health care processes for planning, developing and systematically improving public health systems to reduce carbon footprints leading to environmental sustainability.
Carbon footprint measurement in this study
- Volunteers underwent bowel preparation by taking laxatives until their stool appearance met the clear criteria. The amount of laxative taken was recorded.
- A nurse conducted a medical history interview using a standardized safety checklist before the colonoscopy, measured the patient's vital signs, and established intravenous access for administering medication or fluids.
- Research participants were fitted with a nasal oxygen delivery device and given intravenous sedatives to induce an appropriate level of sedation. Vital signs and fingertip oxygen saturation levels were monitored before starting the colonoscopy.
- During the colonoscopy, the nurse monitored vital signs and oxygen saturation periodically and adjusted the sedative dosage based on the patient's level of consciousness.
- Patients underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. If a colonic polyp was found, it was removed according to clinical indications and current treatment guidelines. The size of the polyp was estimated visually by comparing it with the size of the resection instrument. In the event of bleeding or perforation, endoscopic procedures were performed as indicated for treatment. During the procedure, all equipment used, the volume of water, the type and amount of sedative medication, and the duration of the colonoscopy and colonic polypectomy were recorded for subsequent carbon footprint analysis.
- The removed colonic polyp tissue was preserved in a formalin-containing specimen jar for pathological examination by a pathologist.
- After the colonoscopy, the patient was transferred to a recovery room, where vital signs were monitored periodically until the participant regained full consciousness.
- After polypectomy, the patient resumed antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications according to the timing recommended by standard clinical guidelines.
The data from the patient's intake of laxatives for bowel preparation through to the completion of the colonoscope cleaning process was recorded and analyzed to calculate the carbon footprint in collaboration with the faculty team from the Environmental Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Colonoscopy | – | –Patient receiving diagnostic colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening without therapeutic intervention |
| Colonoscopy with colonic polypectomy | – | –Patient receiving colonoscopy with various techniques of colonic polypectomy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients aged 18-80 years who received a colonoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients aged 18-80 years
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Patient status grade III-V according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)
- Poor bowel preparation (grade <6 in the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS])
- Endoscopic JNET type III or suspicion of malignancy
- Hematologic or coagulation disorders, Plt<140,000/mcL, INR>1.5
- anti-platelet/anticoagulant medication that could not be paused as recommended in the current guideline
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Carbon footprint of normal screening colonoscopy
Time frame: From bowel preparation ingestion through completion of endoscope reprocessing for each colonoscopy procedure.
Mean carbon footprint, expressed as kgCO₂e per procedure, calculated across the pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and post-endoscopic phases.
Incremental carbon footprint according to colonic polypectomy technique
Time frame: From insertion of the polypectomy device through completion of polyp removal and specimen retrieval for each resected polyp.
Mean incremental carbon footprint, expressed as kgCO₂e per resected polyp, for cold forceps biopsy, cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscopic mucosal resection.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Aug 2026.
- Results publicationSteubing B, de Koning A, Merciai S, Tukker A. How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare? A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2022;26(4):1406-22.
- Results publicationTurner DA, Williams ID, Kemp S. Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2015;105:186-97.
- Results publication: PubMed 34324694McGinnis S, Johnson-Privitera C, Nunziato JD, Wohlford S. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment in Medical Practice: A User's Guide. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2021 Jul;76(7):417-428. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000906.
- Results publication: PubMed 34334023Sevigne-Itoiz E, Mwabonje O, Panoutsou C, Woods J. Life cycle assessment (LCA): informing the development of a sustainable circular bioeconomy? Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2021 Sep 20;379(2206):20200352. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0352. Epub 2021 Aug 2.
- Results publication: PubMed 36697420Yu X, Tan C. China's process-related greenhouse gas emission dataset 1990-2020. Sci Data. 2023 Jan 25;10(1):55. doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-01957-y.
- Results publication: PubMed 35803275Rodriguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H, Agrawal D, Arvanitakis M, Baddeley R, Bak E, Bhandari P, Bretthauer M, Burga P, Donnelly L, Eickhoff A, Hayee B, Kaminski MF, Karlovic K, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Pellise M, Pioche M, Siau K, Siersema PD, Stableforth W, Tham TC, Triantafyllou K, Tringali A, Veitch A, Voiosu AM, Webster GJ, Vienne A, Beilenhoff U, Bisschops R, Hassan C, Gralnek IM, Messmann H. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2022 Aug;54(8):797-826. doi: 10.1055/a-1859-3726. Epub 2022 Jul 8.
- Results publication: PubMed 29132259Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: An analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res. 2018 Jan;36(1):39-47. doi: 10.1177/0734242X17739968. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
- Results publication: PubMed 38670139Ferlitsch M, Hassan C, Bisschops R, Bhandari P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Risio M, Paspatis GA, Moss A, Libanio D, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Voiosu AM, Rutter MD, Pellise M, Moons LMG, Probst A, Awadie H, Amato A, Takeuchi Y, Repici A, Rahmi G, Koecklin HU, Albeniz E, Rockenbauer LM, Waldmann E, Messmann H, Triantafyllou K, Jover R, Gralnek IM, Dekker E, Bourke MJ. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024. Endoscopy. 2024 Jul;56(7):516-545. doi: 10.1055/a-2304-3219. Epub 2024 Apr 26.
- Results publication: PubMed 29603399Iwatate M, Sano Y, Tanaka S, Kudo SE, Saito S, Matsuda T, Wada Y, Fujii T, Ikematsu H, Uraoka T, Kobayashi N, Nakamura H, Hotta K, Horimatsu T, Sakamoto N, Fu KI, Tsuruta O, Kawano H, Kashida H, Takeuchi Y, Machida H, Kusaka T, Yoshida N, Hirata I, Terai T, Yamano HO, Nakajima T, Sakamoto T, Yamaguchi Y, Tamai N, Nakano N, Hayashi N, Oka S, Ishikawa H, Murakami Y, Yoshida S, Saito Y; Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET). Validation study for development of the Japan NBI Expert Team classification of colorectal lesions. Dig Endosc. 2018 Sep;30(5):642-651. doi: 10.1111/den.13065. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
- Results publication: PubMed 14652541The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 22624807ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Early DS, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher DA, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan KM, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Sharaf RS, Dominitz JA, Cash BD. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jun;75(6):1127-31. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.011. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 37977580Cunha Neves JA, Rodriguez de Santiago E, Aabakken L. Approaches for greening endoscopy and reducing waste. Gut. 2023 Nov 24;72(12):2204-2206. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330917. No abstract available.
Related trials for Colonoscopy
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Box Breathing Exercise on Anxiety, Pain, and Pulmonary Function Tests in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy
Colonoscopy
RecruitingObservational study
Characterization of Colorectal Dysplasic Lesions and Stratification of Their Evolving Risk in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: a Prospective, Observational and Multicenter Study
Crohn Disease (CD), Colitis Ulcerative
Not yet recruiting
HFNC vs Conventional Oxygen During Gastrocolonoscopy in Elderly Patients
Hypoxemia, Eldery People
Recruiting
Five or Ten Year Colonoscopy for 1-2 Non-Advanced Adenomatous Polyps
Adenocarcinoma of the Colon, Adenocarcinoma of the Rectum
Recruiting
Visual Aids for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Prospective Study on Patient Understanding and Bowel Cleanliness in Colonoscopy Patients
The Effect of Audio-visual Aids on Bowel Cleanliness, Audiovisual Aids
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Colonoscopy, run by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital at 1 site in Thailand.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Thailand. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Carbon footprint of normal screening colonoscopy (time frame: From bowel preparation ingestion through completion of endoscope reprocessing for each colonoscopy procedure.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07171853, which also lists 22 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Aug 2026.