ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2020
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidencing general acceptability of open-label placebo use for tackling overtreatment in primary care: a mixed methods study.BMC medicine · 2023Trial
- Why antimicrobial resistance messaging fails: qualitative insights interpreted through the elaboration likelihood model.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Differing terminology used to describe antimicrobial resistance can influence comprehension and subsequent behavioural intent.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding the lived-experience and support-needs of people living with antimicrobial resistance in the UK through interpretative phenomenological analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Should we stop referring to the pandemic of antimicrobial resistance as silent?JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Existing terminology related to antimicrobial resistance fails to evoke risk perceptions and be remembered.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Community pharmacists as antimicrobial guardians and gatekeepers - A qualitative study of the perspectives of pharmacy sector stakeholders.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Achieving Antimicrobial Stewardship on the Global Scale: Challenges and Opportunities.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Communicating antimicrobial resistance: the need to go beyond human health.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Review
- Resetting the agenda for antibiotic resistance through a health systems perspective.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Review
- Finding What Is Inaccessible: Antimicrobial Resistance Language Use among the One Health Domains.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The naming of diseases is a critical aspect of public health communication. In light of the recent renaming of the 'Wuhan novel coronavirus' to COVID-19, the names of other health threats must be reviewed. In particular, a new name is urgently needed for the global challenge typically referred to as 'antimicrobial resistance'. The current name is inconsistently used, difficult to pronounce and lacks meaning for lay audiences. It also fails to express the magnitude of the phenomenon's potential consequences for human medicine. This article reviews and evaluates key findings from several cross-disciplinary streams of research on the psycholinguistic properties of names. These include early psychology literature pertaining to the concept of 'word attensity', recent cognitive research on 'processing fluency' in the context of word recognition, and relevant marketing literature examining the components of successful branding strategies. Three key criteria-pronounceability, meaningfulness and specificity-are found to influence the perception of names and these are discussed in the context of antimicrobial resistance. The article demonstrates that the current term of 'antimicrobial resistance' falls short with regard to all three criteria and concludes with specific recommendations for the creation of a new name. Only the strategic choice of a single term that is (i) short and easy to pronounce; (ii) intuitively meaningful to lay audiences and indicative of the existential threat linked to antimicrobial resistance; and (iii) uniquely associated with the topic of antimicrobial resistance is likely to bring about overdue change in the global discussion of antimicrobial resistance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.