Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32284815›Full record

ReviewJamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa)2020

Antibiotic resistance and R&D failure: The need for near real-time disaster research.

Chris W Callaghan, Oren Dayan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Chris W CallaghanSchool of Economic and Business Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6554-8363
Oren DayanMilpark Business School, Milpark Education, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0249-8848

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing antibiotic resistance across the world seems to reflect a failure of research and development (R&D) to keep pace with societally important disaster risks. This article uses the example of steadily increasing antibiotic resistance to question whether current R&D systems are able to timeously deal with certain societally important research problems. A review and discussion of new theoretical developments is offered, to suggest how novel technologies might be applied to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health-related disaster risk research. This article seeks to make a conceptual contribution through a critical review and synthesis of novel theory. Theoretical propositions are derived from conceptual analysis. Four key challenges are related to the derived propositions, to derive guidelines for how the disaster risk management process can be supplemented to improve its near real-time research capability. The theoretical propositions derived here relate to certain overarching challenges facing disaster risk research. The theoretical arguments made in this article seek to offer a heuristic perspective that may be useful to those seeking to apply novel technologies in disaster risk research to address societally important research problems such as antibiotic resistance. This research identifies evidence of the failure of the contemporary research system to solve problems like antibiotic resistance. On the basis of a synthesis of novel literature and theory, conclusions suggest certain useful avenues for the improvement of the research process. Urgency is recommended because of mounting societal costs of slow research responses to societal problems.

Indexed as

antibiotic resistancedisasterdisaster risk researchinnovationprobabilistic innovation theoryR&D

Identifiers

PMID32284815
PMCPMC7136688

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.