ReviewZdravstveno varstvo2024
The Prevalence of Self-Reported Systemic Allergic Reaction to
Review in Zdravstveno varstvo, 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.
- Between stings and smoke: prevalence of allergic disorders and exposure to combustion smokes in Northeast Italy's beekeepers.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
- Fifteen Years of Health-and-Environment Research in Slovenia.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Allergy-related Emergency Medical Calls: A Retrospective Dispatch-based Study.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and Risk Factor Analysis of Systemic Allergic Reaction to Bee Venom in the Slovenian Population of Beekeepers.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2025Article
- The risk of occupational anaphylaxis in beekeepers: an educational public health intervention.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
Background: Beekeepers represent a high-allergic risk population group due to their unavoidable seasonal or persistent exposure to the elicitors of Methods: We rigorously reviewed and conducted meta-analysis on observational studies retrieved from seven electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, ScienceDirect, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Zoological Record), spanning data from inception to August 1, 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was employed to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence. Results: Out of 468 studies, eight original articles met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall lifetime and one-year prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom were 23.7% (95% CI: 7.7-53.4) and 7.3% (95% CI: 5.8-9.2), respectively. The estimated lifetime prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom for grades III-IV (severe systemic allergic reaction) was 6.0% (95% CI: 3.0-11.7). In general, substantial heterogeneity and a high risk of bias were observed across the majority of studies. The impact of geographical location and climate differences on the estimated lifetime prevalence is suggestive for severe systemic allergic reaction. Conclusions: Future observational cross-sectional studies should employ rigorous study designs, using validated questionnaires, and thoroughly report the observed health outcomes, verified by physicians.
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.