Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26472961›Full record

ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2015

Epinephrine auto-injector prescriptions to food-allergic patients in primary care in The Netherlands.

Jacquelien Saleh-Langenberg, A E J Dubois, F Groenhof, J W H Kocks, T van der Molen, B M J Flokstra-de Blok

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. How to manage anaphylaxis in primary care.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jacquelien Saleh-LangenbergDepartment of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Allergy, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands ; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A E J DuboisDepartment of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Allergy, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands ; GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
F GroenhofDepartment of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J W H KocksGRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ; Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
T van der MolenGRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ; Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
B M J Flokstra-de BlokGRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ; Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe knowledge of general practitioner(s) (GPs) regarding food allergy and anaphylaxis and practices in the prescription of epinephrine auto-injector(s) (EAIs) among GPs has previously only been studied using questionnaires and hypothetical cases. Therefore, there are currently no data as to whether or not GPs prescribe EAIs to high risk food-allergic patients presenting to primary care practices. The aim of this study was therefore to describe and evaluate practice in EAI prescription by GPs to food-allergic patients in The Netherlands.

methodsPatients aged 12-23 years who consulted their GP for allergic symptoms were identified in a primary care database. Patients were classified as probably or unlikely to be food-allergic. A risk factor assessment was done to identify probably food-allergic patients at high risk for anaphylaxis to assess the need for an EAI.

resultsOne hundred forty-eight out of 1015 patients consulted their GP for allergic symptoms due to food. Eighty patients were excluded from analysis because of incomplete records. Thirty-four patients were classified as probably food-allergic. Twenty-seven of them were considered high risk patients and candidates for an EAI. Importantly, only 10 of them had actually been prescribed an EAI by their GP.

conclusionsThis study shows that high risk food-allergic patients that visit their GPs are often not prescribed an EAI. Thus, previously identified low rates of EAI ownership may be partly due to GPs not prescribing this medication to patients for whom it would be appropriate to do so. These data suggest that there is a need for improvement of the quality of care for high risk food-allergic patients in primary care.

Indexed as

AnaphylaxisEpinephrine auto-injectorFood allergyGeneral practitionerPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID26472961
PMCPMC4607246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.