Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34293502›Full record

ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice2021

Improving Severity Scoring of Food-Induced Allergic Reactions: A Global "Best-Worst Scaling" Exercise.

Aisling Stafford, Joan Bartra, Antony Aston, E N Clare Mills, Montserrat Fernandez-Rivas, Paul J Turner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. How to define severity: A review of allergic reaction severity scoring systems.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2023
    Review
  4. Refractory Anaphylaxis: A New Entity for Severe Anaphylaxis.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
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.

Aisling StaffordNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joan BartraHospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Antony AstonDepartment of Paediatric Allergy, The Royal London Hospital-Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
E N Clare MillsDivision of Infection, Immunity, and Respiratory Medicine, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Montserrat Fernandez-RivasServicio de Alergia, Hospital Clınico San Carlos, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain.
Paul J TurnerNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p.turner@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/K010468/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no current consensus on assigning severity to food-induced allergic reactions, for example, to assess the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy. Existing severity scores lack the capability to discriminate between non-anaphylaxis reactions of different severities. Attempts are ongoing to develop a more discriminatory score, which should ideally be data-driven and validated in multiple cohorts.

objectiveTo undertake an exercise using best-worst scaling (BWS) to define a potential gold standard against which severity scoring of food-induced allergic reactions can be refined.

methodsWe undertook a global survey to better understand how health care professionals rate the severity of food-induced allergic reactions, using BWS methodology. Respondents were given a number of patient case vignettes describing real-world allergic reactions and asked to select the pair that, in their opinion, reflected the maximum difference in severity. Responses were then modeled and a preference score (representing severity) determined for each scenario. Scenarios were also scored using existing published scoring systems and the scores compared with the BWS score using Spearman r correlation and Cohen kappa. Given the differences in definitions of anaphylaxis globally, we also evaluated differences in BWS ranking depending on the geographical location of respondents.

resultsWe received 334 complete responses, 183 (55%) from Europe and 65 (20%) from North America. Perception of severity of some reactions appeared to be affected by geographical location. The comparison of BWS ranking with current grading systems identified significant issues that varied from one grading system to another, such as prominence to some symptoms (eg, vomiting) that skew grading when using scoring systems not designed for food allergy. In general, current scoring systems poorly discriminate against more mild symptoms and often overestimate their severity.

conclusionsThese data provide a methodology free of user scale bias to help define a potential, consensus-driven gold standard that can be used to guide and validate the development of improved grading systems to score food-induced allergic symptoms and highlight areas for education where there is the potential to miscategorize severity.

Indexed as

AnaphylaxisFood HypersensitivityAllergensDesensitization, ImmunologicFoodHumansAllergensAnaphylaxisEducationFood allergySeverity score

Identifiers

PMID34293502
PMCPMC8592392

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.