ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Current Clinical Laboratory Challenges to Widespread Adoption of Phage Therapy in the United States.
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Rapid and quantitative measurement of bacteriophage infectivity via fully automated droplet digital PCR.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Enteric populations ofmSphere · 2026Article
- Characterization and comparative genomic analysis of a novel bacteriophage against an extremely drug-resistantMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Bacteriophage Therapy: Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance Through Advanced Delivery Methods.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Application of bacteriophages in the prevention and control of bacterial infectious diseases in animals.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Exploration of Providers' Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Phage Therapy and Intentions for Future Adoption as an Alternative to Traditional Antibiotics in the US-A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The resurgence of phage therapy in Western societies has been in direct response to recent increases in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that have ravaged many societies. While phage therapy as a concept has been around for over 100 years, it has largely been replaced by antibiotics due to their relative ease of use and their predictability in spectrum of activity. Now that antibiotics have become less reliable due to greater antibiotic resistance and microbiome disruption, phage therapy has once again become a viable and promising alternative, but it is not without its challenges. Much like the development of antibiotics, with deployment of phage therapeutics there will be a simultaneous need for diagnostics in the clinical laboratory. This review provides an overview of current challenges to widespread adoption of phage therapy with a focus on adoption in the clinical diagnostic laboratory. Current barriers include a lack of standard methodology and quality controls for phage susceptibility testing and selection, the absence of phage-antibiotic synergy testing, and the absence of standard methods to assay phage activity on biofilms. Additionally, there are a number of lab-specific administrative and regulatory barriers to widespread phage therapy adoption including the need for pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) assays, methods to account for changes in phages after passaging, an absence of regulatory guidance on what will be required for agency approvals of phages and how broad that approval will apply, and the increased need for lab personnel or automation to account for the work of testing large phage libraries against bacteria isolates.
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.