ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017
Removal of gadolinium-based contrast agents: adsorption on activated carbon.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Global Imprint of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Drinking Water.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Gadolinium Pollution-A Future Forward Perspective on Human and Environmental Impact.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Review
- Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents (GBCAs) for MRI: A Benefit-Risk Balance Analysis from a Chemical, Biomedical, and Environmental Point of View.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Review
- Benefits and Detriments of Gadolinium from Medical Advances to Health and Ecological Risks.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Anthropogenic gadolinium in freshwater and drinking water systems.Water research · 2020Review
- Removal of a gadolinium based contrast agent by a novel sorbent hemoperfusion in a chronic kidney disease (CKD) rodent model.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three carbon samples were employed in this work, including commercial (1690 m
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.