ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2025
Obstetric penicillin allergy evaluations.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2025. 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.
- Clinical Impact and Management of Antibiotic Allergy in Pregnancy.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Penicillin allergy is reported in 5% to 15% of the world population, with 3% to 10% of pregnant women reporting the same. However, more than 90% of these patients can tolerate penicillin after appropriate evaluation. Penicillin is indicated for various issues that arise in pregnancy, and a history of allergy can have negative individual and public health consequences. Objective: Our aim was to prospectively evaluate the feasibility, safety, and select obstetric outcomes of obstetric penicillin allergy evaluations arranged through a direct referral phone line from obstetric practices to an employed allergy/immunology practice. Methods: Patients were referred via direct phone line for evaluation during their antenatal visits between May 2019 and May 2022. Patients underwent skin prick testing, and those with a negative penicillin skin testing (PST) result were subjected to amoxicillin challenge. In select cases of patients with a low-risk history, direct oral challenge was performed. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 324 patients referred between May 2019 and May 2022, a total of 251 (77.5%) presented for in-office evaluations. Of those 251 patients, 239 (95.2%) underwent PST followed by oral challenge if the PST result was negative; 12 patients (4.8%) underwent direct challenge without skin testing, and all of them passed the challenge. Of the patients undergoing PST, 230 (97.2%) had a negative result and 229 tolerated subsequent oral amoxicillin doses, with 1 patient experiencing a delayed reaction to the amoxicillin. The group of patients who presented for evaluation included more people living in ZIP codes described as being of high socioeconomic status than in the no-show group (73.7% vs 63.3%). Conclusion: To our knowledge, ours is the largest study to date to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of a phone line for obstetric penicillin allergy referrals. We demonstrate a better show rate than previous analyses, with most of the patients presenting for evaluation being successfully delabeled.
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.