ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Intergovernmental or fully independent? Designing a scientific panel on evidence for action against antimicrobial resistance.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective global action against antimicrobial resistance (AMR) relies on the successful synthesis and translation of rigorous scientific evidence into policy and practice. Despite a call in 2019 by the Interagency Coordination Group on AMR to establish a policy-science interface, and the reaffirmation to establish a scientific panel in the 2024 Political Declaration on Antimicrobial Resistance, no authoritative entity currently exists that synthesizes the scientific evidence on AMR and outlines policy options based on the best scientific insight. A Scientific Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR (SPEA) could address this gap, as well as contribute to additional governance gaps in the space of AMR, by facilitating better global coordination and cooperation; establishing real-time evidence to guide policy actions; and monitoring progress towards any globally agreed upon AMR goals and targets. In this essay, we argue that SPEA has the potential to fulfill several governance functions, and we explore two design options for such a scientific panel to promote equitable and evidence-informed policy implementation. We first reflect on how the successes and failures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should inform the SPEA. Building on these lessons, we then highlight the key functions of the SPEA, before proposing two models for how it could function in the context of the existing global governance of AMR. Finally, we reflect on the challenges inherent to each proposed governance model. The recent reaffirmation by the United Nations General Assembly to establish a scientific panel in the area of AMR represents a critical opportunity to enhance global AMR governance, promote evidence-based policy implementation, and foster international cooperation in combatting AMR.
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.