ArticlePloS one2023
Is scientific evidence enough? Using expert opinion to fill gaps in data in antimicrobial resistance research.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Bridging the gap: Multi-sector perspectives on human, domestic animal, and wildlife leptospirosis in Ontario, Canada.PloS one · 2026Article
- Assessing coverage of the monitoring framework of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and opportunities to fill gaps.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- Systems thinking to understand the complexity of antimicrobial resistance across One Health: A systematic review of current approaches.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Patient Safety Incidents in Inpatient Psychiatric Settings: An Expert Opinion Survey.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is a global problem with large health and economic consequences. Current gaps in quantitative data are a major limitation for creating models intended to simulate the drivers of AMR. As an intermediate step, expert knowledge and opinion could be utilized to fill gaps in knowledge for areas of the system where quantitative data does not yet exist or are hard to quantify. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify quantifiable data about the current state of the factors that drive AMR and the strengths and directions of relationships between the factors from statements made by a group of experts from the One Health system that drives AMR development and transmission in a European context.
methodsThis study builds upon previous work that developed a causal loop diagram of AMR using input from two workshops conducted in 2019 in Sweden with experts within the European food system context. A secondary analysis of the workshop transcripts was conducted to identify semi-quantitative data to parameterize drivers in a model of AMR. MAIN
findingsParticipants spoke about AMR by combining their personal experiences with professional expertise within their fields. The analysis of participants' statements provided semi-quantitative data that can help inform a future of AMR emergence and transmission based on a causal loop diagram of AMR in a Swedish One Health system context.
conclusionUsing transcripts of a workshop including participants with diverse expertise across the system that drives AMR, we gained invaluable insight into the past, current, and potential future states of the major drivers of AMR, particularly where quantitative data are lacking.
Indexed as
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.