ArticleIJTLD open2025
Clinical standards for antimicrobial stewardship in TB care.
Article in IJTLD open, 2025. 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.
- A call to action on antimicrobial stewardship in tuberculosis: safeguarding effective tuberculosis treatment for future generations.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing for direct drug-resistant tuberculosis detection in sputum samples in Indonesia: an implementation study (2024-25).The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Tuberculosis Stewardship: Reducing Diagnostic Delay Across the Clinical Spectrum in Low-Incidence Settings.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- A Year in Review on Tuberculosis and Non-tuberculous Mycobacteria Disease: A 2026 Update for Clinicians and Scientists.Pathogens & immunity · 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
60 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is essential for combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR), TB-specific AMS strategies remain poorly defined.
methodsAn international panel of 62 experts participated in a Delphi process. Using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strong agreement; 1 = strong disagreement), participants evaluated 10 draft clinical standards developed by a core coordination team. A standard was adopted if ≥90% of respondents rated it three or higher, according to a predefined consensus threshold.
resultsAll 10 standards reached the consensus threshold and were adopted: Standard 1, integration of TB into national AMR action plans; Standard 2, implementation of TB surveillance systems; Standard 3, education of health care providers, individuals affected by TB, and the public; Standard 4, integration of TB into AMS activities; Standard 5, establishment of expert consultation services; Standard 6, targeted testing and preventive treatment for individuals at risk for TB; Standard 7, access to timely and comprehensive drug susceptibility testing; Standard 8, prioritisation of efficacy, safety, and resistance prevention in TB treatment regimens; Standard 9, clinical and microbiological monitoring of treatment response; and Standard 10, assessment of adherence, drug exposure, and resistance in treatment failure.
conclusionThese clinical standards aim to support clinicians, programme managers, and public health authorities in implementing effective, TB-specific AMS strategies.
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.