Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41009841›Full record

ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

"Dusting Off the Cobwebs": Rethinking How We Use New Antibiotics.

Jacob Myles Keck, Jacob Schultz, Alina Viteri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Jacob Myles KeckDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.
Jacob SchultzDepartment of Infection Prevention and Control, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9174-3528
Alina ViteriDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-9287-0726

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance continues to escalate worldwide, threatening effective medical care, patient safety, and global health security. Traditional antibiotics are increasingly unreliable against multidrug-resistant pathogens, resulting in delayed appropriate therapy, prolonged illness, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality. In this context, antimicrobial stewardship must evolve beyond the preservation of older drugs to include the judicious, evidence-based use of newer antibiotics. When used empirically in high-risk scenarios, novel agents can improve clinical outcomes by ensuring timely, effective coverage against MDR organisms while reducing the need for broad-spectrum combinations that drive collateral resistance and adverse effects. A major challenge, however, is the underutilization of these agents, which not only limits patient benefit but also undermines incentives for continued pharmaceutical innovation. To address this gap, stewardship programs must incorporate strategies for appropriate empiric deployment of new antibiotics, guided by local epidemiology, risk stratification, rapid diagnostics, and multidisciplinary decision-making. A coordinated global effort, linking stewardship, innovation, and policy reform, will be critical to optimize the role of novel antimicrobials in clinical practice moving forward.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial stewardshipglobal one healthmultidrug-resistant organisms

Identifiers

PMID41009841
PMCPMC12466355

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.