Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34740914›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2021

Waves of attention: patterns and themes of international antimicrobial resistance reports, 1945-2020.

Kristen Overton, Nicolas Fortané, Alex Broom, Stephanie Raymond, Christoph Gradmann, Ebiowei Samuel F Orubu, Scott H Podolsky, Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Muhammad H Zaman, Claas Kirchhelle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Challenges and shortcomings of antibacterial discovery projects.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2022
    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

10 authors.

Kristen OvertonInfectious Diseases Department, Prince of Wales Hospital Randwick, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nicolas FortanéIRISSO, CNRS, INRAE, Paris-Dauphine University, PSL, Paris, France.
Alex BroomSchool of Social and Political Sciences, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Stephanie RaymondSchool of Social and Political Sciences, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Christoph GradmannInstitute of Health and Society, Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ebiowei Samuel F OrubuInstitute for Health System Innovation and Policy, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Scott H PodolskyDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Susan Rogers Van KatwykGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad H ZamanDepartment of International Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Claas KirchhelleSchool of History, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland claas.kirchhelle@ucd.ie.ORCID 0000-0003-0910-8133

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 218118/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to review 75 years of international policy reports on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our review of 248 policy reports and expert consultation revealed waves of political attention and repeated reframings of AMR as a policy object. AMR emerged as an object of international policy-making during the 1990s. Until then, AMR was primarily defined as a challenge of human and agricultural domains within the Global North that could be overcome via 'rational' drug use and selective restrictions. While a growing number of reports jointly addressed human and agricultural AMR selection, international organisations (IOs) initially focused on whistleblowing and reviewing data. Since 2000, there has been a marked shift in the ecological and geographic focus of AMR risk scenarios. The Global South and One Health (OH) emerged as foci of AMR reports. Using the deterritorialised language of OH to frame AMR as a Southern risk made global stewardship meaningful to donors and legitimised pressure on low-income and middle-income countries to adopt Northern stewardship and surveillance frameworks. It also enabled IOs to move from whistleblowing to managing governance frameworks for antibiotic stewardship. Although the environmental OH domain remains neglected, realisation of the complexity of necessary interventions has increased the range of topics targeted by international action plans. Investment nonetheless continues to focus on biomedical innovation and tends to leave aside broader socioeconomic issues. Better knowledge of how AMR framings have evolved is key to broadening participation in international stewardship going forward.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial StewardshipDrug Resistance, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsdiseasesdisordershealth policies and all other topicsinfectionsinjuriespublic Health

Identifiers

PMID34740914
PMCPMC8573652

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.