ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
Should we stop referring to the pandemic of antimicrobial resistance as silent?
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minding the knowledge-action gap: Results from a mixed-methods study of antimicrobial use among dairy farmers in central Uganda.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Paradox of Healthcare in the 'Superbugs' Era: Current Challenges and Future Directions.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Why antimicrobial resistance messaging fails: qualitative insights interpreted through the elaboration likelihood model.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Antimicrobials in Livestock Farming and Resistance: Public Health Implications.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Characterization of the Antibiotic and Copper Resistance of Emergent Species of Onion-PathogenicPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Air pollution might contribute to antimicrobial resistance: a One Health perspective.Science in One Health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Referring to the ongoing antimicrobial resistance crisis as a 'silent' pandemic has gained popularity, but there are mixed views on whether such a phrase should be used in public health communication. Some researchers have argued that using the term 'silent pandemic' may lower the perceived threat and hinder mobilization efforts to tackle the problem. Objectives: I investigated the impact of the phrase 'silent pandemic' on perceived threat levels and mobilization intentions. Methods: In three experiments ( Results: In Experiments 1 and 2, referring to the pandemic as silent did not significantly affect the perceived threat (Cohen's Conclusions: Describing the pandemic as 'silent' yielded no measurable effects on perceived threat and mobilization intentions but it showed depreciating effects when accompanied by its intended meaning. Taken together, it is advisable to avoid the term.
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.