Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37171671›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2023

Revisiting the Definition of Anaphylaxis.

Catherine Hammond

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Anaphylaxis management: knowledge of Brazilian pediatricians.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2024
    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

1 author.

Catherine HammondDepartment of Pediatrics, Allergy/Immunology, Faculty Office Building, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 49 North Dunlap, Room #296, 38103, Memphis, TN, USA. chammo17@uthsc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAnaphylaxis is a common phenomenon that has been studied for many decades. Despite this, there is still disagreement among organizations regarding the precise definition for anaphylaxis. This article discusses the difference between the proposed definitions of anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the most up-to-date literature on specific subtypes of anaphylaxis is reviewed, and implications for clinical practice are discussed. RECENT

findingsRecent literature on various subtypes of anaphylaxis has been conducted. This has helped clarify guidelines for conditions such as allergy to radiocontrast media, idiopathic anaphylaxis, and food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis. Recent literature has also studied available biomarkers for anaphylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of current standard-of-care prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors. Anaphylaxis is an increasingly more frequent phenomenon and remains a hot topic in current research. Much progress has been made in clarifying the definition of anaphylaxis and differentiating between subtypes, but more research is needed to identify a readily available biomarker for anaphylaxis and identify the standard of care for various subtypes of anaphylaxis.

Indexed as

AnaphylaxisEpinephrineHumansInjectionsEpinephrineAnaphylaxisDefinition of anaphylaxis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.