Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29181453›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2017

Supporting surveillance capacity for antimicrobial resistance: Laboratory capacity strengthening for drug resistant infections in low and middle income countries.

Anna C Seale, Coll Hutchison, Silke Fernandes, Nicole Stoesser, Helen Kelly, Brett Lowe, Paul Turner, Kara Hanson, Clare I R Chandler, Catherine Goodman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Systematic review of surveillance systems for AMR in Africa.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Anna C SealeCollege of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0129-3146
Coll HutchisonLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0065-6507
Silke FernandesLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7694-4233
Nicole StoesserNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
Helen KellyLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Brett LoweNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
Paul TurnerNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
Kara HansonLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Clare I R ChandlerLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Catherine GoodmanLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Richard A StablerLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
J Anthony G ScottLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205184/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens our ability to treat common and life threatening infections. Identifying the emergence of AMR requires strengthening of surveillance for AMR, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where the burden of infection is highest and health systems are least able to respond. This work aimed, through a combination of desk-based investigation, discussion with colleagues worldwide, and visits to three contrasting countries (Ethiopia, Malawi and Vietnam), to map and compare existing models and surveillance systems for AMR, to examine what worked and what did not work. Current capacity for AMR surveillance varies in LMICs, but and systems in development are focussed on laboratory surveillance. This approach limits understanding of AMR and the extent to which laboratory results can inform local, national and international public health policy. An integrated model, combining clinical, laboratory and demographic surveillance in sentinel sites is more informative and costs for clinical and demographic surveillance are proportionally much lower. The speed and extent to which AMR surveillance can be strengthened depends on the functioning of the health system, and the resources available. Where there is existing laboratory capacity, it may be possible to develop 5-20 sentinel sites with a long term view of establishing comprehensive surveillance; but where health systems are weaker and laboratory infrastructure less developed, available expertise and resources may limit this to 1-2 sentinel sites. Prioritising core functions, such as automated blood cultures, reduces investment at each site. Expertise to support AMR surveillance in LMICs may come from a variety of international, or national, institutions. It is important that these organisations collaborate to support the health systems on which AMR surveillance is built, as well as improving technical capacity specifically relating to AMR surveillance. Strong collaborations, and leadership, drive successful AMR surveillance systems across countries and contexts.

Indexed as

antibiotic resistanceantimicrobialdruginfectionsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID29181453
PMCPMC5686477

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.