ArticleAsia Pacific allergy2020
Anaphylaxis diagnosis and management in the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital in the Philippines.
Article in Asia Pacific allergy, 2020. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global patterns in anaphylaxis due to specific foods: A systematic review.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2021Pooled it
- Anaphylaxis in a Swiss university emergency department: clinical characteristics and supposed triggers.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2024Article
- Emergency medicine research in the Philippines: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023Article
- Severe Systemic Reactions Following Bee Sting Injuries in Korea.Yonsei medical journal · 2023Article
- Pediatric Anaphylaxis: Etiology and Predictive Factors in an Emergency Setting.Global pediatric health · 2021Article
- The 10th Anniversary ofAsia Pacific allergy · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the Emergency Department (ED), diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis are challenging with at least 50% of anaphylaxis episodes misdiagnosed when the diagnostic criteria of current guidelines are not used.
objectiveObjective of our study was to assess anaphylaxis diagnosis and management in patients presenting to the ED.
methodsRetrospective chart review conducted on patients presenting to The Medical City Hospital ED, the Philippines from 2013-2015 was done. Cases were identified based on International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th revision coding for either anaphylaxis or other allergic related diagnosis. Cases fitting the definition of anaphylaxis as identified by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) were included. Data collected included demographics, signs and symptoms, triggers and management.
resultsA total of 105 cases were evaluated. Incidence of anaphylaxis for the 3-year study period was 0.03%. Of the 105 cases, 35 (33%) were diagnosed as "urticaria" or "hypersensitivity reaction" despite fulfilling the NIAID/FAAN anaphylaxis criteria. There was a significant difference in epinephrine administration between those given the diagnosis of anaphylaxis versus misdiagnosed cases (61 [87%] vs. 12 [34%], χ
conclusionDespite current guidelines, anaphylaxis is still misdiagnosed in the ED. Having an ED diagnosis of anaphylaxis significantly increases the likelihood of epinephrine administration, and at a shorter time interval.
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.