Observational studyJournal of anesthesia2018
Required cefazolin concentration to maximize diagnostic accuracy of the basophil activation test for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis.
Observational study in Journal of anesthesia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epigenetic Alterations in Perioperative Anaphylaxis Among Chinese Patients: A Case-Control Study Protocol.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Perioperative anaphylaxis in children and first successful cisatracurium desensitization.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025Article
- Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis.Journal of anesthesia · 2021Review
- Anaphylaxis caused by butylscopolamine bromide: a case report.JA clinical reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIdentifying the causative agent of perioperative anaphylaxis is key to preventing its recurrence. Besides skin testing, the basophil activation test (BAT) is increasingly being accepted as an additional and reliable method. Cefazolin seems to be a major cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. However, few studies have described use of the BAT for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis. In this study, we aimed to determine the optimum cefazolin concentration required in the BAT for an accurate diagnosis.
methodsSeven patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to cefazolin and 21 control subjects were studied. We conducted skin tests and performed BATs using both CD203c and CD63 as markers of activated basophils. We measured the ratio of activated basophils after stimulation with serial dilutions of cefazolin and investigated the cefazolin concentration that resulted in better sensitivity and specificity.
resultsAll patients demonstrated positive reactions to cefazolin, while all control subjects showed negative reactions on skin tests. The net percentage of both CD203c- and CD63-labeled activated basophils was greater when higher concentrations of cefazolin than previously reported were used. In control subjects, however, the number of activated basophils by cefazolin stimulation was negligible regardless of its concentration. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity was 86% with a cefazolin concentration of 3 mg/ml, while in the case of CD63, the sensitivity was 100% with a cefazolin concentration of 10 mg/ml.
conclusionUsing a higher concentration of cefazolin than previously reported for the BAT might increase the accuracy of diagnosis of cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis.
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.