Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38343626›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024

Experiences of an inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling pathway: capturing the patient voice.

Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Penicillin Allergy in China: Consequences of Inappropriate Skin Testing Practices and Policies.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Neil PowellPharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro TR1 3LJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-9810
Mathew UptonSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4287-6396
Bridie KentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Jonathan SandoeLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0193-8677
Sarah Tonkin-CrineNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-1151
University of Plymouth · GBRoyal Cornwall Hospital · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing. Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL. Conclusions: Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.

Identifiers

PMID38343626
PMCPMC10854212
OpenAlexW4391697449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.