ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global trends in macrolide and lincosamide resistance in Streptococcus species: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Antibiotic development and a path to access in India.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of a 3-day once-daily regimen of oral nafithromycin in comparison to oral moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults: a phase III, randomized, double-blind controlled trial.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
- Novel Macrolide Antibiotic Nafithromycin for Tackling Emerging Resistance in Respiratory Pathogens Encountered in India.Current microbiology · 2025Review
- Antibiotics in the clinical pipeline as of December 2022.The Journal of antibiotics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Widespread MDR Objectives: To determine the Methods: A total of 920 clinical isolates (one isolate per patient), which predominantly with the macrolide- and clindamycin-resistant phenotype were included in this study. The MICs of nafithromycin and other antibiotics tested were determined using the reference broth microdilution method. Results: Clinical Conclusions: Nafithromycin exhibited therapeutically relevant
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.