ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Bacteriophage Therapy for Resistant Bacterial Infections.
Review in Cureus, 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
Phage therapy, the therapeutic use of bacteriophages for multi-drug resistant bacterial infections, is an understudied treatment approach that has been receiving increased interest in recent years. With multiple different treatment strategies (e.g., oral vs. intravenous (IV)) as well as varying types of bacteriophage combinations (phage cocktails) that are possible, the effectiveness of these phage cocktails on certain bacterial infections, as well as overall safety, is in question. This systematic review aims to analyze current evidence on the efficacy and safety outcomes of bacteriophage therapy for resistant bacterial infections. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted to investigate clinical studies following guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Included studies addressed the efficacy of phage cocktails in bacterial-resistant infections with a secondary focus on safety and adverse events. Two independent reviewers assessed randomized controlled studies using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 (ROB-2) tool and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The three randomized controlled studies demonstrated low risk of bias, while the non-randomized controlled study showed a serious risk of bias. Patient outcomes and adverse events were narratively synthesized due to heterogeneity across study populations, pathogens, and treatment protocols. In total, only four studies met the scope of this review, which significantly limits the interpretation of the results. Two studies focused on
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.