The article critiques the estimates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) burden provided by the AMR Review, a report commissioned by the UK government in 2014. The authors argue that while AMR poses a significant public health and clinical burden, the AMR Review's estimates, particularly those from KPMG, are unreliable and lack transparency. They highlight several methodological issues, including the extrapolation of data from hospital-based surveillance networks like EARS-Net, the use of resistance proportions rather than incidence rates, and the lack of sensitivity analyses. The authors emphasize the need for more comprehensive and reliable AMR surveillance data, especially in low- and middle-income countries, to inform effective control measures. They also call for more rigorous scientific scrutiny and clearer communication of uncertainties in future AMR burden estimates.The article critiques the estimates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) burden provided by the AMR Review, a report commissioned by the UK government in 2014. The authors argue that while AMR poses a significant public health and clinical burden, the AMR Review's estimates, particularly those from KPMG, are unreliable and lack transparency. They highlight several methodological issues, including the extrapolation of data from hospital-based surveillance networks like EARS-Net, the use of resistance proportions rather than incidence rates, and the lack of sensitivity analyses. The authors emphasize the need for more comprehensive and reliable AMR surveillance data, especially in low- and middle-income countries, to inform effective control measures. They also call for more rigorous scientific scrutiny and clearer communication of uncertainties in future AMR burden estimates.