Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29653304›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)2018

A review of the pharmaceutical exposome in aquatic fauna.

Thomas H Miller, Nicolas R Bury, Stewart F Owen, James I MacRae, Leon P Barron

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 256 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Multimodal 3D-printed passive samplers to monitor, model and prioritiseEnvironmental science. Processes & impacts · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing an Ecotoxicological Classification for Frequently Used Drugs in Primary Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The potential ecological risk of veterinary pharmaceuticals from swine wastewater on freshwater aquatic environment.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. GREENER Pharmaceuticals for More Sustainable Healthcare.Environmental science & technology letters · 2022
    Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas H MillerAnalytical & Environmental Sciences Division, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: thomas.miller@kcl.ac.uk.
Nicolas R BuryFaculty of Science, Health and Technology, University of Suffolk, James Hehir Building, University Avenue, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP3 0FS, UK; Division of Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, Franklin Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK.
Stewart F OwenAstraZeneca, Global Environment, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TF, UK.
James I MacRaeMetabolomics Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London, NW1 1AT, UK.
Leon P BarronAnalytical & Environmental Sciences Division, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBAstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBThe Francis Crick Institute · GBUniversity of Suffolk · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmaceuticals have been considered 'contaminants of emerging concern' for more than 20 years. In that time, many laboratory studies have sought to identify hazard and assess risk in the aquatic environment, whilst field studies have searched for targeted candidates and occurrence trends using advanced analytical techniques. However, a lack of a systematic approach to the detection and quantification of pharmaceuticals has provided a fragmented literature of serendipitous approaches. Evaluation of the extent of the risk for the plethora of human and veterinary pharmaceuticals available requires the reliable measurement of trace levels of contaminants across different environmental compartments (water, sediment, biota - of which biota has been largely neglected). The focus on pharmaceutical concentrations in surface waters and other exposure media have therefore limited both the characterisation of the exposome in aquatic wildlife and the understanding of cause and effect relationships. Here, we compile the current analytical approaches and available occurrence and accumulation data in biota to review the current state of research in the field. Our analysis provides evidence in support of the 'Matthew Effect' and raises critical questions about the use of targeted analyte lists for biomonitoring. We provide six recommendations to stimulate and improve future research avenues.

Indexed as

AnimalsAquatic OrganismsBiotaEnvironmental MonitoringFishesHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsWater Pollutants, ChemicalPharmaceutical PreparationsWater Pollutants, ChemicalBioconcentrationFishInvertebratesOccurrencePharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID29653304
PMCPMC5981000
OpenAlexW2798058964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.