ArticleThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology2025
The drug allergy history tool (DAHT): Validation of a patient-reported survey instrument.
Article in The Journal 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.
- Standards for practical management of drug hypersensitivity reactions to intravenous drugs and proactive early allergy involvement before referral: A WAO Statement.The World Allergy Organization journal · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the reaction history is critical for drug allergy evaluations and is typically self-reported, there is no validated survey instrument to collect drug allergy history from patients.
objectiveWe validated a survey instrument that collects patient-reported drug allergy history.
methodsThe drug allergy history tool (DAHT) was revised after 3 rounds of cognitive testing, assessed for reliability through test-retest comparisons, and assessed for quality and validity through a concordance analysis against electronic health record allergist documentation. Participants completing testing and surveys had 1 or more drug allergies and were recruited from allergy clinics at Massachusetts General Hospital. Primary evaluative measures were percentage agreement and kappa statistic values.
resultsThe DAHT was completed by 79 individuals (mean age, 49 [SD 17] years, 85% female, 85% White, 11% Hispanic ethnicity), 29 with single drug allergy labels and 50 with multiple drug allergy labels. The most common drug allergy labels were penicillins (77%), sulfonamides (32%), cephalosporins (15%), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8%). The DAHT achieved acceptable test-retest reliability (median κ = 0.64, median agreement = 86%). The DAHT achieved a more complete allergy history than allergist documentation in the electronic health record, with lower median item uncertainty (21% DAHT vs 79% electronic health record) with fair concordance (median κ = 0.21, median agreement = 67%) between the two data sources.
conclusionThe DAHT is a reliable and valid source of patient-reported drug allergy information. This tool can be used in clinical care and clinical research to obtain standardized patient-reported drug allergy history.
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.