Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A global call from five countries to collaborate in antibiotic stewardship: united we succeed, divided we might fail

Open access
Goff, Debra A, Kullar, Ravina, Goldstein, Ellie J C, Gilchrist, Mark, Nathwani, Dilip, Cheng, Allen C, Cairns, Kelly A, Escandón-Vargas, Kevin, Villegas, Maria Virginia, Brink, Adrian, van den Bergh, Dena, Mendelson, Marc·2017·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

In February, 2016, WHO released a report for the development of national action plans to address the threat of antibiotic resistance, the catastrophic consequences of inaction, and the need for antibiotic stewardship. Antibiotic stewardship combined with infection prevention comprises a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to optimise use of antibiotics. Efforts to mitigate overuse will be unsustainable without learning and coordinating activities globally. In this Personal View, we provide examples of international collaborations to address optimal prescribing, focusing on five countries that have developed different approaches to antibiotic stewardship-the USA, South Africa, Colombia, Australia, and the UK. Although each country's approach differed, when nurtured, individual efforts can positively affect local and national antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Government advocacy, national guidelines, collaborative research, online training programmes, mentoring programmes, and social media in stewardship all played a role. Personal relationships and willingness to learn from each other's successes and failures continues to foster collaboration. We recommend that antibiotic stewardship models need to evolve from infection specialist-based teams to develop and use cadres of health-care professionals, including pharmacists, nurses, and community health workers, to meet the needs of the global population. We also recommend that all health-care providers who prescribe antibiotics take ownership and understand the societal burden of suboptimal antibiotic use, providing examples of how countries can learn, act globally, and share best antibiotic stewardship practices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30386-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Goff, D. A., Kullar, R., Goldstein, E. J. C., Gilchrist, M., Nathwani, D., Cheng, A. C., Cairns, K. A., Escandón-Vargas, K., Villegas, M. V., Brink, A., van den Bergh, D., & Mendelson, M.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
e56-e63
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2553472579
Cited by
233
References
1
FWCI
15.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A global call from five countries to collaborate in antibiotic stewardship: united we succeed, divided we might fail. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30386-3
The paper
Goff, D. A., Kullar, R., Goldstein, E. J. C., Gilchrist, M., Nathwani, D., Cheng, A. C., Cairns, K. A., Escandón-Vargas, K., Villegas, M. V., Brink, A., van den Bergh, D., & Mendelson, M. (2017). A global call from five countries to collaborate in antibiotic stewardship: united we succeed, divided we might fail. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30386-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.