Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phage therapy as a potential solution in the fight against AMR: obstacles and possible futures

Open access
Brives, Charlotte, Pourraz, Jessica·2020·Palgrave Communications

Abstract

Phage therapy, the use of bacteriophage viruses to treat bacterial infections, has existed for more than a hundred years. However, the practice is struggling to develop, despite growing support over the past 15 years from researchers and doctors, who see it as a promising therapy in the context of the rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While the reasons for these developmental difficulties are complex, in this article we wish to address the effects of pharmaceutical regulations on phage therapy. By showing how phages are assimilated to an umpteenth antibiotic in legal texts, but also in certain medical practices, this article proposes to analyze the consequences of such regulatory categorization both for their production and the logistics of administration of proof of their efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as the underlying concepts of infection and treatment. This paper follows Chandler’s work on the concept of antibiotics as infrastructure and its inversion presented by antimicrobial resistance. Phages as living, dynamic, evolving, and specific entities, do not lend themselves easily to current categories, norms, and development models. In this sense, they act as disruptors, revealing the limitations imposed by the existing infrastructure. More precisely here, and to continue Chandler’s initial thought process, this paper aims to show that antibiotics also form a kind of epistemological infrastructure, which acts as a powerful inhibitor to the development of phage therapy. In this sense antibiotics prevent the development of solutions to the problem they contribute to create. But the difficulties phage therapy faces, as highlighted in this article, can be interpreted as entry points for thinking of another medicine and imagining other possible futures. This analysis is based on a 3-year fieldwork study (2016–2019) in Europe (France, Belgium, and Switzerland), during which we conducted semi-directed interviews with various phage therapy stakeholders (physicians, researchers, pharmacists, regulators, patients, and patient associations), participatory observation in labs and observations during symposia and workshops on phages and phage therapy.

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 · 10.1057/s41599-020-0478-4

Cites

48 of 48 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 48 references

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Brives, C., & Pourraz, J.
Venue
Palgrave Communications
Published
2020-05-19
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3028566758
Cited by
322
References
48
FWCI
21.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Phage therapy as a potential solution in the fight against AMR: obstacles and possible futures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/s41599-020-0478-4
The paper
Brives, C., & Pourraz, J. (2020). Phage therapy as a potential solution in the fight against AMR: obstacles and possible futures. Palgrave Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0478-4

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.