Direct Oral Provocation Test Is Safe and Effective in Diagnosing Beta-Lactam Allergy in Low-Risk Children With Mild Cutaneous Reactions.

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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Italian Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations on the Appropriateness of Prescriptions and Diagnostic Tests in Pediatric Allergology: Focus on Anaphylaxis, Drug Allergy and Hymenoptera Venom Allergy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
   Review
2. Recent findings on drug hypersensitivity in children.Frontiers in allergy · 2024
   Review
3. The state and consideration for skin test of β-lactam antibiotics in pediatrics.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
   Review
4. Direct oral provocation test with beta-lactams in Brazilian children and adolescents.Jornal de pediatria
   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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as