ArticleTurkish archives of pediatrics2022
Evaluation of Suspected Macrolide Allergies in Children.
Article in Turkish archives of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macrolide-induced hypersensitivity reactions in the pediatric population.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Diagnosis, Cross-Reactivity, and Risk Factors in Pediatric Patients With Macrolide Allergy.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
- Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis in Children.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMacrolides are often accepted as safe antibiotics due to their low allergenicity. However, studies on macrolides, particularly studies evaluating cross-reactivity in macrolides, are highly rare in children. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical manifestations, confirmation rate, and frequency of cross-reactivity in children admitted with suspicious clarithromycin or azithromycin allergy. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 61 children suspected of macrolide antibiotic allergy (clarithromycin, n = 39 and azithromycin, n = 22) were evaluated. Allergy work-up including drug provocation tests were performed in all patients to confirm drug allergy.
resultsMacrolide allergy was confirmed in 9.8% (n = 6) of patients (azithromycin, 18.2% [n = 4] and clarithromycin, 5.1% [n = 2]). There was no significant difference between the confirmation rate of clarithromycin and azithromycin (P = .117). Cross-reaction with clarithromycin was confirmed in 2 (33.3%) patients with azithromycin allergy.
conclusionDrug skin tests are not capable of confirming or ruling out macrolide allergy, and oral provocation tests are essential for a definitive diagnosis. Cross-reactivity, albeit rare, can occur between clarithromycin and azithromycin, which are the most frequently used macrolides in children.
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.