ReviewNature medicine2026
A consensus-based guideline for personalized bacteriophage therapy.
Review in Nature medicine, 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
40 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacteriophages (phages) - viruses that selectively infect bacteria - are a promising option for personalized therapy of difficult-to-treat bacterial infections. Clinical implementation in many countries worldwide, however, faces multiple hurdles, including a lack of consensus on general principles for phage therapy, infrastructural requirements, procedures for quality-assured phage selection and preparation, clinical administration, monitoring and documentation. Existing guidance provides limited practical direction across the entire translational pathway and lacks inspection-ready specifications to support both pharmacies and clinical sites. These gaps impede safe and transparent clinical use and effective regulatory oversight. Likewise, there are no established processes to identify research questions that will be key to advancing clinical phage research in the future. To address these needs, this consensus-based guideline was developed within the methodological framework of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany under the leadership of the German Society for Infectious Diseases. It was created through a collaborative effort involving 20 professional societies, patient advocacy groups and regulatory authorities and 18 international experts. The guideline provides over 60 recommendations on core principles, infrastructure, preparation and quality control, administration and future research. Recommendations are supported by international societies, organizations and stakeholders. By providing clear and practice-oriented recommendations, this consensus statement paves the way for the safe and standardized use of personalized phage therapy.
Identifiers
42768217What 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.