Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289998›Full record

ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The Safety and Efficacy of Phage Therapy: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Safety Trials.

Helen J Stacey, Steven De Soir, Joshua D Jones

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. A LyticInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Helen J StaceyPublic Health, Kings Cross Hospital, Clepington Road, Dundee DD3 8EA, UK.
Steven De SoirLaboratory for Molecular and Cellular Technology, Queen Astrid Military Hospital, Rue Bruyn, 1120 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8716-4355
Joshua D JonesInfection Medicine, Edinburgh Medical School: Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0981-1913
King's Cross Hospital · GBNHS Tayside · GBQueen Astrid Military Hospital · BE

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_18046Medical Research Council MR/K017047/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trials of phage therapy have not consistently reported efficacy. This contrasts with promising efficacy rates from a sizeable and compelling body of observational literature. This systematic review explores the reasons why many phage trials have not demonstrated efficacy. Four electronic databases were systematically searched for safety and/or efficacy trials of phage therapy. Sixteen trials of phage therapy were included, in which 378 patients received phage. These were divided into historical (pre-2000; N = 3;

Indexed as

bacteriophageclinical trialefficacyphage therapysafetysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36289998
PMCPMC9598614
OpenAlexW4303579090

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.