ArticleAllergy2025
A Growing Concern for Cashew and an Unexpected Risk From Almonds: Data From the Anaphylaxis Registry.
Article in Allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taste aversion and adverse events contribute equally to OIT discontinuation in children: A real-world multi-allergen analysis.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026Observational
- Food-induced anaphylaxis to plant allergens in adolescents and adults: Data from the allergy Vigilance Network (2002-2024).The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Article
- Early Introduction and Other Characteristics in Children With Suspected Severe Peanut or Tree Nut Allergy: Finnish Cohort.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Article
- Management of paediatric anaphylaxis: evaluation of clinical practice according to the 2024 Polish Paediatric Society guidelines.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2026Article
- A Growing Concern for Cashew and an Unexpected Risk From Almonds: Data From the Anaphylaxis Registry.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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFood allergies are a major health concern with rising prevalence. Dietary habits are changing, and information about cashew-induced anaphylaxis is limited.
methodsCases of tree nut-induced anaphylaxis (TIA) registered from 2007 until April 2024 were extracted from the European Anaphylaxis Registry and analyzed.
results1389 cases of TIA out of 5945 registered food-induced reactions (23%) were identified. 1,083 cases with confirmed elicitor status, including 845 children (median age 4 years, 61% male) and 238 adults (38 years, 40% male), were selected for further analysis. The most frequent elicitors among children were cashew (n = 334), hazelnut (n = 211) and walnut (n = 146). The proportion of cashew-induced anaphylaxis increased from 2007 to 2024, and reactions were frequently caused by small amounts (< 1 teaspoon). Adults reacted frequently to hazelnut (n = 105), walnut (n = 47) but also almond (n = 35) and to higher amounts. Potential cofactors were present in 50% of the adult patients and 17% of children. The reaction severity was age-independent, and only a minority of patients was previously aware of their allergy (children 23%, adults 21%). The use of adrenaline was low in lay treatment (children 13%, adults 3%) and reached approximately 40% upon professional treatment.
conclusionCashew is an increasing, relevant allergen leading to anaphylaxis and is now the most frequent cause of TIA among children. These findings highlight the need for effective prevention and treatment measures. Almond was a frequent elicitor among adults and should be further monitored. The acute management requires improvement to comply with current guidelines.
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.