Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27353164›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of antibiotics2017

Antibiotics in the clinical pipeline at the end of 2015.

Mark S Butler, Mark At Blaskovich, Matthew A Cooper

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of antibiotics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

132 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 351 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Challenges of Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

72 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark S ButlerInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
Mark At BlaskovichInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
Matthew A CooperInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing global recognition that the continued emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria poses a serious threat to human health. Action plans released by the World Health Organization and governments of the UK and USA in particular recognize that discovering new antibiotics, particularly those with new modes of action, is one essential element required to avert future catastrophic pandemics. This review lists the 30 antibiotics and two β-lactamase/β-lactam combinations first launched since 2000, and analyzes in depth seven new antibiotics and two new β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations launched since 2013. The development status, mode of action, spectra of activity and genesis (natural product, natural product-derived, synthetic or protein/mammalian peptide) of the 37 compounds and six β-lactamase/β-lactam combinations being evaluated in clinical trials between 2013 and 2015 are discussed. Compounds discontinued from clinical development since 2013 and new antibacterial pharmacophores are also reviewed.

Indexed as

Drug DesignAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaDrug DiscoveryDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID27353164
OpenAlexW2463990453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.