ArticleJPGN reports2025
Discrepancy between Mexican paediatricians and ESPGHAN experts regarding cow's milk allergy.
Article in JPGN reports, 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.
- Discrepancy between Mexican paediatricians and ESPGHAN experts regarding cow's milk allergy.JPGN reports · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is a common food allergy in infants. Guidelines and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of CMA are based on scientific review of the available evidence. However, real-world situations may oblige clinicians to adapt a different attitude. Methods: This paper evaluated the opinion of 42 Mexican paediatricians on the 73 statements presented in the recent position paper of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). Voting on the statements and their interpretation were identical for both groups (online and anonymous). Both groups were unaware of the other's outcome at the moment of the voting. Results: While the ESPGHAN group accepted all 73 statements, the Mexican group rejected 19 statements. Two rejections were due to the mean and median being below the predefined and agreed-upon cut-off, and 17 were due to over 75% of participants disagreeing with the statements. The greatest discrepancy was observed regarding the role of vitamin D in preventing CMA. Conclusion: While opinions on the prevalence, diagnosis and management of CMA were comparable between European paediatric gastroenterologists and Mexican general paediatricians for the majority of statements, significant differences were observed. It is essential to gather information from various regions and healthcare levels to enhance the impact of recommendations.
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.