ArticleWellcome open research2024
Investigating the feasibility and potential of combining industry AMR monitoring systems: a comparison with WHO GLASS.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mind the governance gap: a one health scoping review of national AMR performance indicators.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2026Article
- Using GIS Dashboards to highlight AMR data disparities in Africa for Policy, Research, and Public Health.PloS one · 2026Article
- Prediction of antibiotic resistance from antibiotic susceptibility testing results from surveillance data using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Efforts to estimate the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) have highlighted gaps in existing surveillance systems. Data gathered from hospital networks globally by pharmaceutical industries to monitor antibiotic efficacy in different bacteria represent an underused source of information to complete our knowledge of AMR burden.. We analysed available industry monitoring systems to assess to which extent combining them could help fill the gaps in our current understanding of AMR levels and trends. Methods: We analysed six industry monitoring systems (ATLAS, GEARS, SIDERO-WT, KEYSTONE, DREAM, and SOAR) obtained from the Vivli platform and reviewed their respective isolates collection and analysis protocols. Using the R software, we designed a pipeline to harmonise and combine these into a single dataset. We assessed the reliability of resistance estimates from these sources by comparing the combined dataset to the publicly available subset of WHO GLASS for shared bacteria-antibiotic-country-year combinations. Results: Combined, the industry monitoring systems cover 18 years (4 years for GLASS), 85 countries (71), 412 bacterial species (8), and 75 antibiotics (25). Although all industry systems followed a similar centralised testing approach, the patient selection protocol and associated sampling period were unclear. Over all reported years and countries, E.coli, K. pneumoniae and S. aureus resistance rates were in >65% of cases within 0.1 of the corresponding estimate in GLASS. We did not identify systemic bias towards resistance in industry systems compared to GLASS. Conclusions: High agreement values for available comparisons with GLASS suggest that data for other bacteria-antibiotic-country-year combinations only present in industry systems could complement GLASS; however, for this purpose patient and isolate selection criteria must first be clarified to understand the representativeness of industry systems. This additional source of information on resistance levels could help clinicians and stakeholders prioritize testing and select appropriate antibiotics in settings with limited surveillance data.
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.