ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2026
A practical guide to structured data processing for antimicrobial resistance surveillance.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 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
backgroundEfforts have been made to standardize antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data collection globally. There remain challenges in improving the efficiency of data collection and processing to enable comparison of high-quality AMR data across settings. We aimed to design a causal analytic workflow to standardize data processing and provide structure for quality monitoring using a generic raw data structure.
methodsWe identified challenges in processing AMR and infection surveillance data, including a high time burden, differing raw data structures, differences in the identification and management of likely contaminants and the laborious task of managing antimicrobial prescription and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data. Using two neonatal infection surveillance databases, we developed a standardized processing method to provide a generic data structure for robust cross-database comparisons.
resultsWe developed an eight-step process that integrated multidisciplinary input to streamline data processing. We implemented standardized scripts to convert AMR data from differing structures (wide and long) into a generic relational data structure representing four main concepts: 'persons', 'episodes', 'organisms' and 'specimens'. We implemented standardized algorithms to interpret and group antimicrobial and AST data and to categorize pathogens by degree of pathogenicity. This process led to the production of three data monitoring reports: a raw data report for data quality and validity checks, a monitoring report to identify key patterns in the data and an analytic report to answer key research questions.
conclusionsMore efficient, low-resource-dependent methods are essential for processing AMR data. This process will enable improved structure for reliable and comparative reporting of AMR across clinical sites globally.
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.