ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2025
Biphasic anaphylaxis in a Canadian tertiary care centre: an evaluation of incidence and risk factors from electronic health records and telephone interviews.
Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 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.
- Post-anaphylaxis observation in the ED: a decade of data challenging the traditional 24-hour rule.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
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
backgroundOur previous 2007 study reported a 19.4% rate of biphasic anaphylaxis in Kingston, Ontario. Since then, few updates have been published regarding the etiology and risk factors of biphasic anaphylaxis. This study aimed to describe the incidence of and predictors of biphasic anaphylaxis in a single centre through a retrospective evaluation of patients with diagnosed anaphylaxis.
methodsFrom November 2015 to August 2017, all patients who presented to the emergency department at two hospital sites in Kingston given a diagnosis of "allergic reaction," "anaphylaxis," "drug allergy," or "insect sting allergy," were evaluated. Patients were contacted sometime after ED discharge to obtain consent and confirm symptoms and timing of the reaction. A trained allergist determined if criteria for anaphylaxis were met and categorized the reactions as being uniphasic, biphasic, or non-anaphylactic biphasic. A full medical review of the event ensued, and each type of anaphylactic event was statistically compared.
resultsOf 138 anaphylactic events identified, 15.94% were biphasic reactions, 79.0% were uniphasic, and 5.07% were classified alternatively as a non-anaphylactic biphasic reaction. The average time of a second reaction was 19.0 h in patients experiencing biphasic reactivity. For biphasic anaphylaxis, the symptom profiles of second reactions were significantly less severe (p = 0.0002) compared with the initial reaction but significantly more severe than non-anaphylactic biphasic events (p < 0.0001).No differences of management were identified between events.
conclusionThe incidence of biphasic reactions in this cohort was 15.94% and the average second-phase onset was 19.0 h. In biphasic reactivity, it appears that the symptom profile second reaction is less severe compared to the first reaction.
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.