ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of testing pregnant women for penicillin allergy.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The cost-effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing: Evidence and gaps from a systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with Intrapartum Antibiotic Regimens in Women with Prolonged Membrane Rupture and Unknown Group B Streptococcus Status: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary DRG management for rational medication in obstetrics: a cost analysis in Zhejiang Province.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Antibiotic use and financial impact of a comprehensive beta-lactam allergy management program.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTrue penicillin allergy is rare and is commonly incorrectly reported. In fact, less than five percent of patients who report a penicillin allergy will have a currently active clinically-significant IgE- or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity when appropriately tested. Penicillin is the agent of choice for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the risk of group B streptococcus early-onset disease in the newborn. Inaccurate penicillin allergy status may lead to inappropriate antibiotic use, as most alternative drugs are more expensive and broader spectrum than penicillin. Penicillin allergy testing has been found to be safe in pregnancy and cost-effective in other patient populations.
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and appropriate antibiotic treatment (test then treat strategy) compared to usual care among pregnant women.
methodsWe developed a decision tree to evaluate the cost of providing appropriate care via a test then treat strategy for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy, compared to usual care.
resultsUsing the test then treat strategy the additional cost to ensure appropriate care for all pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy, was $1122.38 per person. Adopting a test then treat strategy increased the number of appropriate antibiotic use from 7,843/10,000 to 10,000/10,000 simulations.
conclusionOur results show that a test then treat strategy for pregnant women who report a penicillin allergy is a good-value intervention.
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.