ReviewEssays in biochemistry2024
Considerations for prioritising clinical research using bacteriophage.
Review in Essays in biochemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current State of the Fight Against Antimicrobial Resistance: What Are the Different Strategies for Tomorrow?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- OvercomingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The new age of the phage.Essays in biochemistry · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant global health threat, as it contributes to prolonged illness, higher mortality rates and increased healthcare costs. As traditional antibiotics become less effective, treatments such as bacteriophage therapy offer potential solutions. The question remains, however, on how to set research priorities in the face of a growing number of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, some common and/or dangerous. One standard way of making decisions about which research to prioritise is by using the disability-adjusted life year metric to estimate the current global impact of a disease or condition, combined with considerations of social justice although decisions made at a national level by governments, especially in low income countries with forecasting potential over future needs may look very different. Another approach is based on the needs of researchers and regulators given what we know about the technology itself. The biological characteristics of bacteriophage therapies set challenges to a universal and standardised prioritisation method. A proof of principle is still arguably needed. With a preliminary discussion of the scope and complexity of AMR and AMR therapeutics, we propose some implications of regulatory frameworks aiming to integrate bacteriophage therapy into mainstream medical practice while gathering scientific data on safety and efficacy, enhancing the collective action needed to combat AMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.