ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2024
Impact of penicillin allergy records on antimicrobial prescribing in hospitalised patients.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The microbiological profile of diabetic foot infections: historical trends and relationship with amputation.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Outcomes of a penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a prospective, single centre, type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study evaluated using mixed methods.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Cephalosporin use and patient outcomes following removal of penicillin-cephalosporin cross-reactivity alerts from the electronic health record.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Observational
- Antibiotic Prescribing for Cellulitis in the Absence of Penicillin-Cephalosporin Cross-Reactivity Alerts: A Retrospective Study.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Article
- Editorial: Learnings from all walks of medical practice.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe overdiagnosis of penicillin allergy and misclassification of non-truly allergic reactions is a growing public health problem, associated with the overuse of broad-spectrum and restricted antimicrobials. We aimed to evaluate the impact of penicillin allergy status on antimicrobial prescribing.
methodsA retrospective study of inpatients with a documented penicillin allergy receiving antimicrobials was conducted from 1 April to 1 July 2021. Antimicrobial prescribing and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with an active penicillin allergy label and those whose label was removed following antimicrobial stewardship team review. Antimicrobials were classified in two categories: i) 'Access' (recommended), ii) 'Watch and Reserve' (restricted) according to WHO AWaRe classification, a tool to guide appropriate antibiotic use.
results437 patients with a documented penicillin allergy receiving antimicrobials were included. 353 patients with an active penicillin allergy label, more frequently received antimicrobials from the 'Watch and Reserve list' (283;80% vs 30;37%; p<0.001). In contrast, 84 patients who were de-labelled received more often antimicrobials from the 'Access list' (53;63% vs 64;18%; p<0.001).
conclusionsPenicillin allergy reviews and de-labelling strategies may reduce the use of restricted antimicrobials under the 'Watch and Reserve list'. This practice should be encouraged and reinforced in all hospitals.
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.