ArticleCureus2023
The Ability of First Aid Providers to Recognize Anaphylaxis: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Singapore First Aid Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026Guideline
- 10 practical priorities to prevent and manage serious allergic reactions: GAClinical and translational allergy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early recognition of anaphylaxis is critical to early treatment and often occurs in the first aid setting. However, the ability of first aid providers to recognize anaphylaxis is unknown. We sought to examine the evidence regarding first aid providers' ability to recognize anaphylaxis. Our scoping review was performed as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) continuous evidence evaluation processes to update the 2020 ILCOR Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and the gray literature from 2010 to September 2022. The population included adults and children experiencing anaphylaxis with a description of any specific symptom to a first aid provider. Recognition of anaphylaxis was the primary outcome. Two investigators (DM and PC) reviewed abstracts and extracted and assessed the data. Discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus with the ILCOR First Aid Task Force. Out of 957 hits, 17 studies met inclusion criteria: one review and meta-analysis, two experimental studies, and 14 observational studies. We did not identify any studies that directly addressed our PICOST (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study Design, and Timeframe) as none were performed in the first aid setting. Articles included individuals who may be first aid providers as patients and parents (n=5), teachers, students or school staff (n=8), caregivers and patients (n= 2) or nannies (n=1). All included studies were conducted in high-income countries. Our scoping review found that signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis were not specific and did not allow for easy identification by the first aid provider. Studies focused on education (n=10) and protocols (n=2) and found that both could have a positive impact on anaphylaxis recognition and management. While we did not identify any clinical studies that directly addressed the ability of first aid providers to identify anaphylaxis, future studies examining education methods and action plans may help improve the identification of anaphylaxis by first aid providers.
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.