ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023
The WHO costing and budgeting tool for national action plans on antimicrobial resistance-a practical addition to the WHOle toolkit.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The WHO costing and budgeting tool for national action plans on antimicrobial resistance-a review and assessment of impact in Africa.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Policy Makers' Perceptions on Implementation of National Action Plans on Antimicrobial Resistance in South Africa and Eswatini Using Coordination, Accountability, Resourcing, Regulation and Ownership Framework (2018-2019).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in the ECOWAS Region: Setting the Scene for Critical Interventions Needed.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Antimicrobial resistance in China across human, animal, and environment sectors - a review of policy documents using a governance framework.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The development of national action plans (NAPs) for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been promoted and supported by the WHO, with recent support in the form of costing and budgeting tools to aid in finance-allocation decisions within governments. Methods: In this brief report we review this WHO costing and budgeting tool, discuss the strengths and weaknesses, and consider its place alongside other health economics and policy-support tools developed. Results: We call for future analyses of the costs of AMR NAPs to consider costs beyond that of only implementation, through use of other available, open-access data and tools. These include the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) data and One Health tools already within the existing 'WHO toolbox'. Conclusions: We suggest that future work on evaluating AMR along the impact pipeline use this toolbox where possible, ensuring empirical work is in turn open access.
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.