Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26734462›Full record

ArticleImmunity, inflammation and disease2015

Anaphylaxis cases presenting to primary care paramedics in Quebec.

Nofar Kimchi, Ann Clarke, Jocelyn Moisan, Colette Lachaine, Sebastien La Vieille, Yuka Asai, Lawrence Joseph, Chris Mill, Moshe Ben-Shoshan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020
    Review
  3. Critical view of anaphylaxis epidemiology: open questions and new perspectives.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2018
    Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Nofar KimchiTechnion American Medical Students Program Haifa Israel.
Ann ClarkeDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Jocelyn MoisanDirecteur Médical Régional des Services Préhospitaliers D'urgence de L'Outaouais Quebec Canada.
Colette LachaineDirectrice médicale nationale Direction Adjointe de Services Préhospitaliers D'urgence MSSS, Quebec Canada.
Sebastien La VieilleFood Directorate Health Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
Yuka AsaiDivision of Dermatology, Department of Medicine Queen's University Kingston, Ontario Canada.
Lawrence JosephDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics McGill University Montreal, Quebec Canada.
Chris MillSchool of Population and Public Health University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada.
Moshe Ben-ShoshanDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine McGill University Health Centre Montreal, Quebec Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data on anaphylaxis cases in pre-hospital settings is limited. As part of the Cross Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE), we assessed anaphylaxis cases managed by paramedics in Outaouais, Quebec. A software program was developed to prospectively record demographic and clinical characteristics as well as management of cases meeting the definition of the anaphylaxis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were compared to assess factors associated with severity of reactions and epinephrine use. Among 33,788 ambulance calls of which 23,486 required transport, 104 anaphylaxis cases were identified (anaphylaxis rate of 0.31% [95%CI, 0.25%, 0.37%] among all ambulance calls and 0.44% [95%CI, 0.36%, 0.54%] among those requiring transport). The median age was 46.8 years and 41.3% were males. The common triggers included food (32.7% [95%CI, 24.0%, 42.7%]), drugs (24.0% [16.4%, 33.6%]), and venom (17.3% [10.8%, 26.2%]). Among all reactions, 37.5% (95%CI, 28.4%, 47.6%) were severe. Epinephrine was not administered in 35.6% (95%CI, 26.6%, 45.6%) of all cases. Males were more likely to have severe reactions (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.50 [95%CI, 1.03, 6.01]). Venom-induced reactions and severe anaphylaxis were more likely to be managed with epinephrine (OR: 6.9 [95%CI, 1.3, 35.3] and 4.2 [95%CI, 1.5, 12.0], respectively). This is the first prospective study evaluating anaphylaxis managed by paramedics. Anaphylaxis accounts for a substantial proportion of the cases managed by paramedics in Outaouais, Quebec and exceeds prior reports of the proportion of Quebec emergency room visits attributed to anaphylaxis. Although guidelines recommend prompt use of epinephrine for all cases of anaphylaxis, more than a third of cases did not receive epinephrine. It is crucial to develop educational programs targeting paramedics to promote the use of epinephrine in all cases of anaphylaxis regardless of the specific trigger.

Indexed as

AnaphylaxisEmergency Medical Servicesepinephrinemanagementtriggers

Identifiers

PMID26734462
PMCPMC4693720

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.