ReviewPEC innovation2022
Children at risk of anaphylaxis: A mixed-studies systematic review of parents' experiences and information needs.
Review in PEC innovation, 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.
- Associations with food allergy-related psychological distress in a global sample of adults, children and caregivers.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
- Caregiver experiences and needs in pediatric rheumatic disease: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Public Knowledge and Management Practices of Anaphylaxis in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Seeking Care for Children with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities in the Emergency Department: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Parents' Experiences and Information Needs.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 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
Objective: To explore parents' self-reported experiences and information needs regarding recognition and management of pediatric anaphylaxis. Methods: We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid PsychInfo, CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature to identify primary studies in English or French published since 2000. We used a mixed-method appraisal tool and convergent integrated approach to assess quality and synthesize data, respectively. Results: 43 studies were included (22 quantitative, 19 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method); 77% of studies had high methodological quality. Parents' experiences were categorized as: recognizing an anaphylactic reaction; managing and responding to a reaction; emotional impact of caring for a child at risk of anaphylaxis; and interaction with the health system and healthcare providers. Parents' information needs were categorized into themes relating to: gaps in knowledge and information; type of information desired; information sources; and information delivery format. Conclusion: Negative emotional experiences and a general lack of information were commonly reported by parents of included studies. Provision of relevant and comprehensible information may help parents to make informed decisions and manage reactions promptly. Innovation: The findings of this review are guiding the development of an innovative knowledge translation tool (KT) as part of a larger initiative of developing a suite of parent-focused KT tools for acute childhood conditions.
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.