Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27012545›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental geochemistry and health2017

Risk assessment for arsenic-contaminated groundwater along River Indus in Pakistan.

Unaib Rabbani, Gohar Mahar, Azhar Siddique, Zafar Fatmi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental geochemistry and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Unaib RabbaniDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Gohar MaharUnit for Ain Zubaida Rehabilitation and Groundwater Research, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Azhar SiddiqueQatar Environment and Energy Research Institute, Hammad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar.
Zafar FatmiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. zafar.fatmi@aku.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study determined the risk zone and estimated the population at risk of adverse health effects for arsenic exposure along the bank of River Indus in Pakistan. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 216 randomly selected villages of one of the districts along River Indus. Wells of ten households from each village were selected to measure arsenic levels. The location of wells was identified using global positioning system device, and spatial variations of the groundwater contamination were assessed using geographical information system tools. Using layers of contaminated drinking water wells according to arsenic levels and population with major landmarks, a risk zone and estimated population at risk were determined, which were exposed to arsenic level ≥10 µg/L. Drinking wells with arsenic levels of ≥10 µg/L were concentrated within 18 km near the river bank. Based on these estimates, a total of 13 million people were exposed to ≥10 µg/L arsenic concentration along the course of River Indus traversing through 27 districts in Pakistan. This information would help the researchers in designing health effect studies on arsenic and policy makers in allocating resources for designing focused interventions for arsenic mitigation in Pakistan. The study methods have implication on similar populations which are affected along rivers due to arsenic contamination.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentArsenicCross-Sectional StudiesGroundwaterHumansPakistanRiversWater Pollutants, ChemicalArsenicWater Pollutants, ChemicalArsenicDrinking groundwaterGlobal positioning systemPakistanRisk assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.