ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2026
Evaluating the efficiency of platform trials relative to stand-alone trials: a simulation study for the evaluation of new antibacterials.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSerious Gram-negative bacterial infections impose significant burden, with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales designated as WHO critical priority pathogens. Antibacterial registration trials are traditionally stand-alone two-arm randomized controlled trials evaluating one agent in a site-specific infection. Platform trials have been proposed as an alternative to identify new treatments more efficiently.
objectivesTo evaluate the efficiency of different trial designs for treatments in serious resistant Gram-negative infections.
methodsWe conducted simulation studies comparing platform trials with parallel and staggered starts and multiple stand-alone trials for serious infections caused by critical priority Gram-negative pathogens. Simulated recruitment and randomization were used to assess the impact of trial design, control type and allocation ratio on trial duration, sample size and operating characteristics.
resultsIn this setting, parallel or staggered platform trials reduced the sample size by 31-279 participants and the trial duration by 7-13 months compared with stand-alone trials. The staggered platform trial with concurrent controls required 11.0%-23.4% fewer participants and up to 46.8% less control participants than stand-alone trials. Across designs and scenarios, type I error and power, were consistently close to the nominal levels for all treatment-control comparisons.
conclusionsPlatform trials can improve efficiency over stand-alone trials, reducing duration and sample size while maintaining operating characteristics. The improvement varies with control type, allocation ratio and staggered entry of agents and could help accelerate antibacterial development. This has implications for funders, sponsors and patients requiring access to new therapies, while recognizing ongoing operational and regulatory challenges.
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.