Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41598212›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Phage Therapy: Application and Related Problems-A Review.

Katharina Sippel, Branko Velimirov

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. UropathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
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.

Katharina SippelSection of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Medical Faculty, Sigmund Freud University, Freud Platz 3, 1020 Wien, Austria.
Branko VelimirovSection of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Medical Faculty, Sigmund Freud University, Freud Platz 3, 1020 Wien, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteriophages, viruses that target bacteria, offer a promising alternative to antibiotics in the face of escalating bacterial resistance. Despite their discovery over a century ago, their widespread adoption has been impeded by regulatory challenges, limited funding, and the dominance of antibiotics. This review evaluates the current status of phage therapy by examining a comprehensive literature search, applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review assesses selected scientific reports and clinical studies for their safety and efficacy profiles. Our findings indicate that advancements in phage therapy involve critical steps such as rapid bacterial detection, effective isolation, production, purification of phage preparations, and understanding their interactions with the host. Clinical studies generally show promising safety profiles with fewer adverse events compared to controls, and some trials suggest efficacy even at lower phage titers. Case reports further highlight phage therapy's potential, demonstrating high success rates and minimal adverse events, although caution is advised due to potential biases. Despite promising results, significant research gaps remain, primarily due to the limited number of large-scale, well-designed clinical trials.

Indexed as

antibacterial agentsbacteriophagecase reportsclinical trialsinnate and adaptive immunityphage cocktailssafetytolerability

Identifiers

PMID41598212
PMCPMC12843445

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.