Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41775897›Full record

Articlenpj antimicrobials and resistance2026

Development of the antimicrobial resistance burden score through a modified eDelphi.

William J Waldock, Mark Gilchrist, Frances Davies, Cesar de la Fuente-Nunez, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in npj antimicrobials and resistance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

William J WaldockInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK. william.waldock17@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3283-4096
Mark GilchristImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Frances DaviesImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Cesar de la Fuente-NunezMachine Biology Group, Departments of Psychiatry and Microbiology, Institute for Biomedical Informatics, Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Hutan AshrafianInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ara DarziInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bryony Dean FranklinInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance relies on fragmented indicators that fail to capture institutional AMR burden complexity. To develop the AMR Burden Score, a three-round modified eDelphi study engaged interdisciplinary experts (Round 1: n = 17, Rounds 2 and 3: n = 7), including clinicians, microbiologists, pharmacists, health economists, and public health specialists. The AMR Burden Score comprises six weighted domains: Resistance (25%), Effectiveness (30%), Monitoring (30%), Adoption (5%), Processes (5%), and Systems (5%). Strong consensus emerged for core indicators, including incidence of resistant infections (unanimous Round 3 agreement, median 8.0), pathogen-specific resistance rates (median 7.0), and staff training programmes (median 8.0). The AMR Burden Score provides a structured framework for institutional AMR assessment, though implementation requires context-specific adaptation and further validation.

Identifiers

PMID41775897
PMCPMC12957418

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.