Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical analysis of antibacterial agents in clinical development

Open access
Theuretzbacher, Ursula, Bush, Karen, Harbarth, Stephan, Paul, Mical, Rex, John H., Tacconelli, Evelina, Thwaites, Guy E.·2020·Nature Reviews Microbiology

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 · 10.1038/s41579-020-0340-0

Cites

74 of 74 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 74 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Theuretzbacher, U., Bush, K., Harbarth, S., Paul, M., Rex, J. H., Tacconelli, E., & Thwaites, G. E.
Venue
Nature Reviews Microbiology
Published
2020-03-09
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
286-298
ISSN
  • 1740-1526 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-1534
OpenAlex
W3010223436
Cited by
373
References
74
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Critical analysis of antibacterial agents in clinical development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41579-020-0340-0
The paper
Theuretzbacher, U., Bush, K., Harbarth, S., Paul, M., Rex, J. H., Tacconelli, E., & Thwaites, G. E. (2020). Critical analysis of antibacterial agents in clinical development. Nature Reviews Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0340-0

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.