ReviewChemical reviews2026
A Critical Review to Avoid Common Misinterpretations in Characterizing Graphene Oxide.
Review in Chemical reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Exploring the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Graphene Oxide: Key Mechanisms and Future Directions.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Strong interest in graphene oxide (GO) over the past decades has resulted in significant advances toward numerous applications and progress in understanding its chemistry. A rather broad community of scientists is involved in GO research including specialists in chemistry, physics, life, and materials sciences. While this diversity is a strength, common characterization techniques, such as Raman spectroscopy, FTIR, XPS, and XRD are often misused and inconsistently interpreted. Errors in data processing and analysis often invalidate key conclusions made in research papers. In many cases, experimental data provided in different studies are difficult to compare due to the lack of standardized ways of interpretations. The purpose of this review is to clarify common misunderstandings and errors in GO characterization by the four above-mentioned methods and to provide useful recommendations for best practices in data acquisition, processing, and interpretation. It also aims to offer guidance for new researchers entering the field of GO. The review is based on the authors' extensive experience in the field. By promoting standardized approaches, this review seeks to improve data comparability, enhance reliability in GO research, and establish a solid foundation for analyzing the structure and reactivity of GO-based materials.
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.