ReviewMicrobiologyOpen2026
Phage Therapy as an Alternative Strategy Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Narrative Review of Preclinical and Clinical Evidence.
Review in MicrobiologyOpen, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen and one of the main causes of nosocomial infections. This pathogen affects immunocompromised individuals such as patients with chronic wounds or cystic fibrosis. Its capacity to evade antimicrobial therapies through resistance mechanisms has resulted in widespread prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR), and pandrug-resistant (PDR) strains. We searched three databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science) for articles evaluating the effects of phage administration in the management of P. aeruginosa infections in animals and humans. We analyzed the main characteristics of the interventions, the coverage of different bacterial strains, and discussed possible gaps in the evidence available in the last 10 years. Literature shows strong evidence that the use of phage therapy for several clinical conditions in humans and animal models is a safe and effective intervention for infections caused by MDR/XDR/PDR P. aeruginosa. Despite its therapeutic potential, phage therapy still faces several limitations such as lack of standardized dosing protocols, inconsistent endotoxin quantification, and limited regulatory frameworks. Future guidelines should focus on the regulation and validation of phage therapy in clinical practice, after overcoming the limitations currently identified. Further studies should ensure the standardization of phage production and the validation of delivery systems and routes of administration. Conducting multicenter clinical trials can contribute to the clinical implementation of phage therapy in countries where it is not yet regulated.
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.