Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35432713›Full record

ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2022

Intradermal testing increases the accuracy of an immediate-type cefaclor hypersensitivity diagnosis.

Ji-Hyang Lee, Chan Sun Park, Min Ju Pyo, A Ryang Lee, Eunyong Shin, Young-Sang Yoo, Woo-Jung Song, Tae-Bum Kim, You-Sook Cho, Hyouk-Soo Kwon

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ji-Hyang LeeDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Chan Sun ParkDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Inje University of College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, South Korea.
Min Ju PyoDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
A Ryang LeeDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Eunyong ShinDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Young-Sang YooDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Woo-Jung SongDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Tae-Bum KimDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
You-Sook ChoDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hyouk-Soo KwonDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Ulsan College · KRInje University Haeundae Paik Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions to cefaclor have increased in accordance with its frequent use. However, only limited data are available on the diagnostic value of skin tests for these conditions, particularly intradermal tests (IDTs). Objective: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of IDT compared to the ImmunoCAP test in patients with cefaclor-induced immediate-type hypersensitivity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review from January 2010 to June 2020 of adult subjects from 2 tertiary hospitals in Korea with a history of suspected immediate-type hypersensitivity to cefaclor, and who had undergone ImmunoCAP and IDT. Results: Overall, 131 subjects diagnosed with cefaclor hypersensitivity were included in the analysis. Fifty-nine patients (59/131, 45.04%) were positive in both IDT and ImmunoCAP. Fifty-four (54/131, 41.22%) and 6 (6/131, 4.58%) subjects showed positive results only with IDT or the ImmunoCAP test, respectively. Twelve subjects (12/131, 9.16%) were negative by both tests but reacted positively in a drug provocation test. The frequency of IDT positivity was similar regardless of the severity of reactions. However, positivity of ImmunoCAP was lower in subjects with mild reactions compared to those with anaphylaxis. Regarding the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity, the overall sensitivity of IDT and ImmunoCAP was 0.863 and 0.496, respectively while the specificity was 1. The combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP further increased this sensitivity to 0.908. Conclusion: IDT was more sensitive than ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor allergy, regardless of the severity of the hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, we recommend a combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity.

Indexed as

Beta-lactamsCefaclorCephalosporinsDiagnostic accuracyDrug provocation testIgE quantificationImmediate hypersensitivityIntradermal skin test

Identifiers

PMID35432713
PMCPMC8983408
OpenAlexW4221040542

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.