SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to delabel low-risk penicillin allergies with consideration for sex and gender.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to delabel low-risk penicillin allergies with consideration for sex and gender.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- New Insights Into Immunomodulatory Strategies for Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: An EAACI Task Force Report.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026Review
- Sex-based differences in penicillin allergy labeling among adults in a Canadian ambulatory urgent medicine clinic: a cross-sectional study.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
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
aimsSex and gender may influence penicillin allergy label (PAL) prevalence and outcomes. This review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of direct delabelling (DD) and oral challenge (OC) for low-risk patients and examines sex and gender differences in reporting and outcomes.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, medRxiv, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE until February 2024 for studies including DD or OC compared to no intervention, skin testing or other methods. Two reviewers assessed quality. Meta-analyses were conducted, and subgroup analyses were carried out if I
resultsFrom 1046 screened studies, 28 met inclusion criteria (two RCTs, 26 quasi-experimental studies). Sex at baseline was reported in 86% of studies, with 61% females: 18% disaggregated outcomes by sex with a female mean delabelling rate of 66%. Gender variables were not reported. OC was not found to be more or less as effective comparaed to skin testing in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95, 1.13, I
conclusionsDD and OC are effective for delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies. Comprehensive data is lacking on sex and gender differences, indicating a need for further research.
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.