ReviewInfection2026
A review on antibiotic and non-antibiotic decolonization strategies of multidrug-resistant bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract.
Review in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antibiotic-induced gut microbiome dysbiosis: risks and strategies for mitigation.The EMBO journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The escalating global threat of antimicrobial resistance represents a critical challenge for contemporary medicine. Intestinal colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is increasingly identified as a primary driver of hospital-acquired infections across various patient cohorts. While localized eradication via non-absorbable antibiotics was once viewed as a viable strategy, clinical evidence has failed to demonstrate its efficacy. Consequently, attention has shifted toward microbiome-modulating interventions, such as fecal microbiota transfer (FMT), probiotics, and live biotherapeutic products (LBPs), which have shown potential in preliminary studies. However, current evidence remains fragmented and lacks the support of large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review critically assesses both traditional and novel decolonization methods and features a comprehensive summary of clinical studies to highlight existing research gaps. A notable limitation of this analysis is the absence of a formal methodological quality assessment for the included studies. Ultimately, definitive conclusions remain elusive, necessitating future large-scale, pathogen-specific RCTs to validate these emerging approaches.
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.