ArticleJournal of occupational health2016
Anaphylaxis in laboratory workers because of rodent handling: two case reports.
Article in Journal of occupational health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational Allergy to Rat and Mouse in Research Laboratories.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
- Occupational anaphylaxis: A Position Paper of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI).Allergologie select · 2024Article
- Animal bite anaphylaxis, rarely diagnosed but underappreciated.Allergologie select · 2023Article
- Occupational Animal Allergy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2018Review
- Survey of practitioners handling slow lorises (Primates:Journal of venom research · 2018Article
- Biological occupational allergy: Protein microarray for the study of laboratory animal allergy (LAA).AIMS public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOccupational allergy to rodents among laboratory animal workers is common. Most patients generally experience allergic symptoms after the first few years of work. Associated symptoms are usually mild, such as rhinoconjunctivits, urticaria, and asthma. Anaphylaxis, although rare, could be severe and life threatening.
methodsWe have described in this study two cases of laboratory workers that developed skin and respiratory reactions following laboratory rat and mouse bites, consistent with anaphylaxis.
resultsSkin testing was found positive for rat epithelium in the patient with anaphylaxis due to rat bite. Elevated levels of specific IgE antibodies against rat and mouse epitheliums were also detected in both the patients.
conclusionThese cases illustrate a severe hypersensitivity reaction that could potentially occur in occupational workers that are in close contact with rodents. Reduction of allergen exposure, regular screening, and job modification could be beneficial for affected individuals. Health care workers should be made aware that anaphylaxis could be a serious consequence of laboratory animal bites, particularly in those already sensitized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.