Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29686538›Full record

ArticleClinical and molecular allergy : CMA2018

Hymenoptera sting reactions in southern Italy forestry workers: our experience compared to reported data.

Luisa Ricciardi, Francesco Papia, Giuseppe Cataldo, Mario Giorgianni, Giovanna Spatari, Sebastiano Gangemi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Update on Insect Sting Anaphylaxis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2021
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luisa Ricciardi1Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, School and Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3105-8347
Francesco Papia1Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, School and Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Giuseppe Cataldo1Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, School and Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Mario Giorgianni2Department of Biomedical Sciences, Dental, Morphological and Functional Investigations, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Giovanna Spatari2Department of Biomedical Sciences, Dental, Morphological and Functional Investigations, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Sebastiano Gangemi1Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, School and Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
University of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHymenoptera sting reactions are among life-threatening causes of allergy. Several epidemiology studies have assessed the risk of these kind of reactions, among the general population, around 3% of adults. This incidence increases among highly at risk populations such as outdoor workers. Hymenoptera stings among forestry workers (FW) are occupational triggers but it has not yet been well defined which is the real incidence of anaphylaxis in these workers, not even in Italy. Two Italian studies reported on the risk of hymenoptera stings (HS) in northern Italy (NI) and central Italy (CI) FW while no data is available on the prevalence in southern Italy (SI) ones.

methodsA population of 341 SI FW (301 males and 40 females, mean age 51 years, range 43-63 years), who worked in Sicily, was investigated submitting a standardized questionnaire dealing with reactions to Hymenoptera stings, such as large local reactions (LLR) and systemic reactions (SR).

resultsHS occurred in 203 FW (59%) and caused reactions in 77 (22%); LLR occurred in 46 (13%) and SR in 31 (9%); SR were life threatening in 9/341 (3%) FW and were treated with epinephrine at the emergency unit as workers did not carry an epinephrine auto-injector. A SR at a subsequent HS followed a LLR in 21/46 FW (46%).

conclusionsFW in SI have a generic risk of HS anaphylaxis as in the general population but a higher risk of SR and LLR respect to forestry populations from different Italian geographical areas.SR among SI FW occurred in 9% of them, while published data report the incidence of SR around 2 and 4%, respectively, in the Centre and North Italy FW. The incidence of LLR in SI FW was also higher (13%) than in CI (2%) and NI (10%) ones. Previous LLR in our SI population represented a high risk factor for developing a SR and therefore a red flag for future anaphylaxis and prescription of an epinephrine auto-injector.

Identifiers

PMID29686538
PMCPMC5902920
OpenAlexW2803386130

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.