Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research I (MP17)1 May 2024MP17-19 BEYOND THE SCIENCE: THE HIDDEN COSTS OF PRINTED POSTER PRESENTATIONS AT UROLOGY CONFERENCES Austin J. Livingston, David L. Barquin, Ezra J. Margolin, Rand N. Wilcox Vanden Berg, Jordan R. Foreman, Andrew C. Peterson, Charles D. Scales, Jodi Antonelli, Michael E. Lipkin, Gary J. Faerber, Glenn M. Preminger, and Robert A. Medairos Austin J. LivingstonAustin J. Livingston , David L. BarquinDavid L. Barquin , Ezra J. MargolinEzra J. Margolin , Rand N. Wilcox Vanden BergRand N. Wilcox Vanden Berg , Jordan R. ForemanJordan R. Foreman , Andrew C. PetersonAndrew C. Peterson , Charles D. ScalesCharles D. Scales , Jodi AntonelliJodi Antonelli , Michael E. LipkinMichael E. Lipkin , Gary J. FaerberGary J. Faerber , Glenn M. PremingerGlenn M. Preminger , and Robert A. MedairosRobert A. Medairos View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008628.15460.84.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Poster presentations serve a vital function in the dissemination of research at urologic conferences, yet the financial and environmental implications remain unexplored. While accessible alternatives to traditional printed posters exist, a comparative analysis has not been performed. This study aims to compare the economic and environmental impacts of traditional printed poster presentations with various alternative formats at major urological conferences in recent years. METHODS: Conference agendas and number of poster presentations from selected urology conferences in 2021 and 2022 were reviewed. The costs (US Dollars) were based on the average price of standard printing services ($90 for a 36"x72" poster). The environmental impact from printing the poster was evaluated using the Hewlett-Packard carbon footprint calculator. Comparative estimates for several alternative presentation formats included compact posters ($60 for a 36"x48"), digital viewing via 43" television (TV) screens, projected posters, and a printed QR code page (8.5"x11") linked to an online poster. Energy consumption for two-hour usage of video monitors or portable projectors was derived from Energy.gov data. Transportation and shipping costs, as well as the production and recycling of gloss paper and electronics were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Table 1 presents the number of posters at selected conferences by year, along with the alternatives. The total cost to presenters in 2021 was $236,340 and $262,710 in 2022. This resulted in 3789 kWh (2021) and 4212 kWh (2022) of energy usage. In contrast, conferences with digital presentations incurred no direct economic cost for poster presentation. The energy required to display posters on a TV screen was estimated to be 263 kWh in 2021 and 292 kWh in 2022, indicating a 93% reduction in energy consumption. A 33% reduction in both costs and carbon emissions was estimated for compact posters. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional posters pose a significant financial and environmental cost. The potential for developing an innovative, sustainable platform for research dissemination warrants further exploration. Potential strategies include conversion to completely digital formats, a hybrid format with online hosting of posters linked to printed QR codes, or standardizing more compact posters. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e299 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Austin J. Livingston More articles by this author David L. Barquin More articles by this author Ezra J. Margolin More articles by this author Rand N. Wilcox Vanden Berg More articles by this author Jordan R. Foreman More articles by this author Andrew C. Peterson More articles by this author Charles D. Scales More articles by this author Jodi Antonelli More articles by this author Michael E. Lipkin More articles by this author Gary J. Faerber More articles by this author Glenn M. Preminger More articles by this author Robert A. Medairos More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Livingston et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: