Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29599677›Full record

ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2018

Venom immunotherapy and pregnancy.

Krzysztof Pałgan, Magdalena Żbikowska-Götz, Elżbieta Chrzaniecka, Zbigniew Bartuzi

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Krzysztof PałganDepartment of Allergology, Clinical Immunology and Internal Diseases, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland.
Magdalena Żbikowska-GötzDepartment of Allergology, Clinical Immunology and Internal Diseases, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland.
Elżbieta ChrzanieckaDepartment of Allergology, Clinical Immunology and Internal Diseases, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland.
Zbigniew BartuziDepartment of Allergology, Clinical Immunology and Internal Diseases, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland.
Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz · PLNicolaus Copernicus University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionsThe efficiency of venom immunotherapy (VIT) has been well documented by many studies. However, the most important for VIT is safety, particularly for a pregnant woman and a fetus.

aimTo establish the influence of continuation of VIT on pregnant women and offspring. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe 6 women became pregnant during a specific immunotherapy. We retrospectively analyzed the influence of the immunotherapy on any complications for the pregnant women and their infants.

resultsOf the 6 patients who participated in this study, four had hyperemesis gravidarum, nausea, and heartburn, and two of them had gestational diabetes mellitus symptoms, typical of pregnancy. The observation indicated that VIT was safe for the pregnant women and their offspring.

conclusionsThe VIT is an appropriate therapeutic method for most patients with severe anaphylactic reactions after a hymenoptera sting. The observation indicated that VIT is safe for pregnant women and for their infants.

Indexed as

pregnancyvenom immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID29599677
PMCPMC5872249
OpenAlexW2788604530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.