Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41362794›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025

Rethinking the WHO AWaRe classification: the need for more detailed guidance.

Shinya Tsuzuki, Ryuji Koizumi, Kensuke Aoyagi, Yusuke Asai, Norio Ohmagari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Shinya TsuzukiDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan Institute for Health Security, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryuji KoizumiAMR Clinical Reference Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan Institute for Health Security, Tokyo, Japan.
Kensuke AoyagiAMR Clinical Reference Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan Institute for Health Security, Tokyo, Japan.
Yusuke AsaiAMR Clinical Reference Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan Institute for Health Security, Tokyo, Japan.
Norio OhmagariDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan Institute for Health Security, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization's Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) classification promotes appropriate antibiotic use and is widely adopted as a global indicator of antimicrobial use (AMU) quality. This paper highlights key limitations of the AWaRe classification system, using Japan as a case study. The global targets for the proportional use of "Access" antibiotics (60%-70%) lack epidemiological justification and may not fully capture regional disease patterns to reflect regional disease patterns. Furthermore, inconsistencies in drug classification and the influence of long-term prescriptions can distort Access category percentages. As most countries do not monitor prescription duration in AMU surveillance, global comparisons using the current AWaRe framework may be misleading. This paper suggests a careful reassessment of AMU surveillance methodology or the AWaRe classification itself to ensure meaningful evaluation of antibiotic stewardship efforts worldwide. Funding: This article was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (JP23HA2002) and JSPS KAKENHI grant number JP23K18396 and the funders did not play any role in writing the manuscript.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial consumptionAntimicrobial resistanceAntimicrobial stewardshipAWaRe classification

Identifiers

PMID41362794
PMCPMC12682002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.