ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2024
Reliability and validation of an electronic penicillin allergy risk-assessment tool in a pregnant population.
Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using the Electronic Health Record to Facilitate Drug Allergy Delabeling.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPenicillin allergy adversely impacts patient care, yet most cases do not have true allergies. Clinicians require efficient, reliable clinical tools to identify low risk patients who can be safely de-labeled. Our center implemented the FIRSTLINE electronic point-of-care decision support tool to help non-allergist practitioners risk stratify patients with penicillin allergy. We sought to explore the reliability and validity of this tool in relation to allergist assessment and actual patient outcomes. We additionally compared it with two other published stratification tools, JAMA and PENFAST, to assess ability to accurately identify low risk patients appropriate for direct oral challenge.
methodsIn this single-center, retrospective, observational study, 181 pregnant females with self-reported penicillin allergy between July 2019 to June 2021 at BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada were used to assess the reliability and validity of all three tools. Physician-guided history of penicillin use and symptoms were used for scoring. Results and recommendations were compared to actual patient outcomes after clinician decision for direct oral challenge or intradermal tests. We compared the performance of JAMA, PENFAST and FIRSTLINE.
results181 patients were assessed. 176/181 (97.2%) patients were deemed not allergic. Each risk stratification tool labelled majority of patients as low risk with 88.4% of patients PENFAST 0-2, 60.2% of patients JAMA low risk, 86.7% of patients FIRSTLINE very low risk.
conclusionWe demonstrate that our point-of-care electronic algorithm is reliable in identifying low risk pregnant patients, as compared to an allergist assessment. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide direct comparison between multiple decision support tools using the same population, minimizing participant bias. Providing clinical algorithms to risk stratify patients, can enable healthcare professionals to safely identify individuals who may be candidates for direct penicillin oral challenges versus needing referral to specialists. This increases the generalizability and efficiency of penicillin allergy de-labeling.
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.