Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35136968›Full record

ArticleBritish medical bulletin2022

Ethics and antibiotic resistance.

Euzebiusz Jamrozik, George S Heriot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British medical bulletin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Ethics of Antibiotic Course Duration: Shorter is Better.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

2 authors.

Euzebiusz JamrozikThe Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford. Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
George S HeriotDepartment of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, 300 Grattan St, Parkville, 3050, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203132Wellcome Trust 221719Wellcome Trust 221719/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION OR

backgroundAntibiotic resistance raises ethical issues due to the severe and inequitably distributed consequences caused by individual actions and policies. SOURCES OF DATA: Synthesis of ethical, scientific and clinical literature. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Ethical analyses have focused on the moral responsibilities of patients to complete antibiotic courses, resistance as a tragedy of the commons and attempts to limit use through antibiotic stewardship. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Each of these analyses has significant limitations and can result in self-defeating or overly narrow implications for policy. GROWING POINTS: More complex analyses focus on ethical implications of ubiquitous asymptomatic carriage of resistant bacteria, non-linear outcomes within and between patients over time and global variation in resistant disease burdens. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Neglected topics include the harms of antibiotic use, including off-target effects on the human microbiome, and the lack of evidence guiding most antibiotic prescription decisions.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsMoralsDrug Resistance, MicrobialHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial resistancebioethicsdrug resistancejusticestewardshiptragedy of the commons

Identifiers

PMID35136968
PMCPMC8935610

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.