ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2026
Assessment of the Prioritization of Diagnostics in National Action Plans for Antimicrobial Resistance.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundClinically diagnosing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains a challenge, with significant variation in countries' readiness and ability to address it. This study explores how diagnostic capabilities feature in national action plans (NAPs) for AMR, to respond to and manage infections in human health.
methodsA targeted analysis was conducted of available NAPs of World Health Organization member states. NAPs were analyzed using predefined search terms and an analytical framework for diagnostic modality, key diagnostic activities (laboratory capacity, external quality assessment, surveillance, antimicrobial stewardship, and research) and key performance indicators (KPIs) specific to diagnostics.
resultsOf the 142 NAPs analyzed, 136/142 (95.8%) included diagnostics, mostly in the context of surveillance (131/142 [92.3%]) and building laboratory capacity (113/142 [79.6%]). Culture-based diagnostics appeared in 124/142 (87.3%) NAPs, point-of-care (POC) diagnostics in 47/142 (33.1%), and laboratory-based molecular diagnostics in 47/142 (33.1%). POC diagnostics were included most frequently in high-income country (HIC) NAPs (24/44 [54.5%]), and NAPs of the European region (21/37 [56.8%]). Diagnostic-specific KPIs were found in 35/142 (24.6%) NAPs, and KPIs specific to POC diagnostics in 9/142 (6.3%). Diagnostic KPIs were included most frequently in NAPs of the African Region (15/36 [41.7%]) and low- and middle-income countries (13/42 [31.0%]).
conclusionsWhile diagnostics feature in most NAPs, POC diagnostics are underrepresented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries lacking diagnostic infrastructure and resources. The lack of KPIs, particularly in HICs, prevents effective evaluation. This study highlights the need for improved strategic planning to ensure NAP objectives are translated into real-world deliverable action to manage AMR.
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.