ArticleAllergy2025
Discrepancies in Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Cross-Reactivity: Implications for Clinical Practice.
Article in Allergy, 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.
- The impact of drug allergy on planetary health and sustainability.Asia Pacific allergy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with a beta-lactam antibiotic (BA) allergy label, avoidance of the whole group of BAs leads to displacement of first-line therapies potentially influencing patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance. Studies previously published on BA cross-reactivity use different sets of BA and seem to contain conflicting recommendations on safe BA alternatives in case of (suspected) BA allergy.
methodsThe objectives were (i) to identify discrepancies between studies regarding cross-allergy in BA and (ii) to identify research gaps. The tables and errata of 4 studies (Romano et al., Trubiano et al., Zagursky et al., SWAB-guideline by Wijnakker et al.) were evaluated and compared head-to-head.
resultsA total of 51 antibiotics were covered by the four authors, theoretically leading to 2550 potential recommendations regarding alternatives in case of specific allergies. Internal discrepancies existed in 2 tables. Since none of the tables included all 51 BAs, in 356 situations data were lacking regarding specific alternatives. In 1104 situations, only one author gave advice about a specific alternative. Harmony and disharmony between authors could be evaluated in 1090 cases. The advice regarding alternative BAs was 696 times in harmony (482 safe, 214 unsafe), while discrepancies were found in 394 cases. This led to a different advice (safe vs. unsafe) in 272 cases or 69%.
conclusionDisharmony between authors was identified in 36% of the cases. In 69%, this led to a clinically relevant, different advice. This indicates the need for synchronisation of cross-reactivity tables and answering remaining research gaps.
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.