ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
Interventions to address antimicrobial resistance in migrants: a systematic review.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health threat that disproportionately affects structurally marginalized groups, including migrants. Yet migrants are largely absent from AMR surveillance systems and response strategies, creating health inequities and undermining global containment efforts. This systematic review examines the evidence base for interventions targeting AMR in migrant populations, with three objectives to summarize existing research; to identify gaps in data collection, intervention design and outcome measurement; and to propose a path towards more equitable, migrant-inclusive AMR responses. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed (January 2000-December 2025), following PRISMA guidelines using terms related to migration, AMR and interventions. Tuberculosis studies were excluded and we prioritized interventions addressing WHO Critical and High-Priority pathogens. Results: Of 4039 records screened, only four studies met inclusion criteria, therefore we performed a narrative synthesis. Discussion: Across these studies we identified three persistent gaps: (i) surveillance and monitoring rarely stratified data by migration status, ethnicity or country of origin; (ii) interventions were almost exclusively hospital-based, with little attention to community settings or care pathways; and (iii) outcome measurement was limited, with a narrow focus on microbiological endpoints and few robust clinical or equity-sensitive outcomes. Current evidence on AMR interventions for migrants is scarce, fragmented and insufficient to guide policy. Future work should prioritize high-quality, disaggregated surveillance data, contextually appropriate study designs and community-based care models, enabling rigorous, equity-driven evaluation of interventions.
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.