Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42106577›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026

Activated charcoal in the stomach: Clinical familiarity and limited gross recognition.

Lorenzo Gitto

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Lorenzo GittoDepartment of Pathology, Cook County Medical Examiner's Office, 2121 W Harrison St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. drlorenzogitto@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1435-1819

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Activated charcoal is widely used in the medical management of acute intoxications, yet its gross appearance at autopsy is poorly described and may represent a diagnostic pitfall. We report a case highlighting this issue. An elderly man with a history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and prostate cancer was found unresponsive in his closed residential garage after making suicidal statements. Open bottles of amlodipine and glimepiride were found on his person. He was hospitalized, where routine toxicology screening was negative, and he died in the intensive care unit less than 24 h after admission. At autopsy, the stomach contained an abundant amount of dense, black, odorless, thick material adherent to the gastric mucosa which wiped off after gentle cleaning. After removal, the underlying mucosa was intact, without hemorrhage or ulceration. Review of medical records indicated that activated charcoal had been administered during hospitalization due to concern for intentional medication ingestion. Subsequent expanded toxicology testing demonstrated a markedly elevated amlodipine concentration, consistent with acute toxicity. The cause of death was certified as amlodipine toxicity, and the manner of death as suicide. This case illustrates the characteristic gross appearance of activated charcoal in the stomach and discusses its potential to mimic other causes of black gastric contents, including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, caustic ingestion, Wischnewsky spots, hydrocarbons, black esophagus, and iron deposition. Awareness of this finding and careful correlation of gross autopsy findings with medical history and toxicologic results are essential to avoid misinterpretation and diagnostic error in forensic practice.

Indexed as

Activated charcoalAutopsyDifferential diagnosisForensic pathologyGastric content

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.