Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40442282›Full record

Reviewnpj antimicrobials and resistance2025

Re-evaluating what makes a phage unsuitable for therapy.

Bradley W M Cook, Alexander P Hynes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in npj antimicrobials and resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. UropathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Genomic landscape of 340 virulent Acinetobacter bacteriophages reveals anti-CRISPR-enriched candidates for therapeutic prioritization.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Rolling outMicrobial genomics · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bradley W M Cook *Cytophage Technologies Inc., Oak Bluff, MB, Canada. bcook@cytophage.com.
Alexander P Hynes *Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. hynes@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant 2018-05996
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges in phage therapy is selecting the 'right' phage. What constitutes a 'good' phage is unclear, but regulators are converging on exclusion criteria for 'bad' phages. Here, we examine three commonly applied criteria: the lack of virulence/antibiotic resistance, the inability to transduce, and being strictly lytic (virulent). We assess the risk posed, the tools for determining the criteria, and the potential impact of the criteria.

Identifiers

PMID40442282
PMCPMC12122733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.