ArticleJournal of paediatrics and child health2022
Emergency department childhood anaphylaxis presentations in regional/remote Australia.
Article in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-reported food allergies in early childhood in rural Australia.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
- Retrospective evaluation of pediatric anaphylaxis cases according to WAO and NIAID/FAAN/EAACI criteria: A single center experience.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Article
- A retrospective audit of adult and paediatric anaphylaxis management from two Australian metropolitan mixed emergency departments.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Different age groups present different clinics in anaphylaxis with children: one size does not fit all children.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimExplore the prevalence of childhood anaphylaxis and clinical presentation of anaphylaxis in children across two regional emergency departments over a 7-year period.
methodsRetrospective audit of all children (0-18 years) presenting to emergency from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 with anaphylaxis, defined by Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy definitions and doctor diagnosis.
resultsSeven hundred and twenty-four patients were identified with allergic diagnosis, 60% were diagnosed with non-anaphylaxis allergic reactions or unspecified urticaria and 40% with anaphylaxis (n = 286). Annual prevalence of anaphylaxis remained stable over the study period (M = 30.9/10 000 cases, range: 20.8-48.3/10 000). Gender distribution was equal, median age was 9.48 years (interquartile range = 4-15). Most (71%) arrived by private transport. 23% had a prior history of anaphylaxis. Food triggers (44%) were the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Insect bites/stings triggers occurred in 21%. Patients were promptly assessed (average wait time = 13 min), 16% received prior adrenaline injections. Adrenaline was administered in 26% and 20% were admitted to hospital. On discharge, 29% had a follow-up plan, 9% received an allergy clinic referral, 6% anaphylaxis action plan, 26% adrenaline autoinjector prescriptions and allergy testing performed in 6%.
conclusionsWe found a relatively low prevalence of overall childhood anaphylaxis in a regional area. The two most common causes of anaphylaxis in this population (food and bites/stings) recorded increased prevalence providing an opportunity for further study. Significant gaps in evidence-based care of anaphylaxis were noted, demonstrating the need for improved recognition and treatment guideline implementation in regional areas.
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.