ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Comparison of Clinical Manifestations, Treatments, and Outcomes between Vespidae Sting and Formicidae Sting Patients in the Emergency Department in Taiwan.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptome-Metabolome Integration Deciphers the Metabolic and Transcriptional Reprogramming in Mice Due toToxins · 2026Article
- Emergency response and clinical treatment analysis of a mass wasp sting incident involving 38 tourists: A case report.Medicine · 2026Article
- Multisystem injury after wasp stings in the Qinling range, Shaanxi, China: clinical profile and independent predictors of poor outcome.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Investigation of the underuse of adrenaline (epinephrine) and prognosis among patients with anaphylaxis at emergency department admission.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHymenopteran stings are the most common animal insult injury encountered in the emergency department. With increasing global spread of imported fire ants in recent decades, the rate of Formicidae assault has become a serious problem in many countries. Formicidae-associated injuries gradually increased in Taiwan in recent decades and became the second most common arthropod assault injury in our ED. The present study aimed at comparing the clinical characteristics of Formicidae sting patients with those of the most serious and common group, Vespidae sting patients, in an emergency department (ED) in Taiwan.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who were admitted between 2015 to 2018 to the ED in a local teaching hospital in Taiwan after a Vespidae or Formicidae sting. Cases with anaphylactic reaction were further compared.
resultsWe reviewed the records of 881 subjects (503 males, 378 females; mean age, 49.09 ± 17.62 years) who visited our emergency department due to Vespidae or Formicidae stings. A total of 538 (61.1%) were categorized into the Vespidae group, and 343 (38.9%) were sorted into the Formicidae group. The Formicidae group had a longer ED length of stay (79.15 ± 92.30 vs. 108.00 ± 96.50 min,
conclusionFormicidae sting patients presented to the ED with higher rate allergic reactions and spent more time in the ED than Vespidae sting patients. However, Vespidae sting patients had more complications and higher rates of admission, especially with anaphylactic reaction. Laboratory data, especially creatine kinase data, were more valuable to check in Vespidae sting patients with an anaphylactic reaction in the ED. Both groups exhibited positive correlations with temperature and a higher rate on weekend days.
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.