ArticleClinical and translational allergy2025
Evaluation of Diagnosis, Cross-Reactivity, and Risk Factors in Pediatric Patients With Macrolide Allergy.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macrolide-induced hypersensitivity reactions in the pediatric population.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Diagnosis, Cross-Reactivity, and Risk Factors in Pediatric Patients With Macrolide Allergy.Clinical and translational 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMacrolide antibiotics are generally considered safe in children, but allergic reactions can still occur. This study aims to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of intradermal test (IDT) used to detect macrolide allergy in pediatric patients, investigate the rate of cross-reactivity between clarithromycin and azithromycin, and identify factors influencing the development of macrolide allergy.
methodsA total of 102 patients with suspected clarithromycin and azithromycin allergy were included in the study. Characteristics of the reactions and results of skin and drug oral provocation test (OPT) were recorded.
resultsClarithromycin was confirmed as the culprit drug in 8 (9%) of 88 patients, and azithromycin in 1 (7.1%) of 14 patients. The cross-reactivity between clarithromycin and azithromycin determined 11.1%. In patients with immediate-type reactions, IDT performed at a concentration of 0.05 mg/mL demonstrated a sensitivity of 33.3% (95% CI: 0.0%-66.7%) and a specificity of 92.7% (95% CI: 82.9%-100%). When a higher concentration of 0.5 mg/mL was used, sensitivity increased to 100% (95% CI: 0.0%-100%), while specificity decreased to 78.9% (95% CI: 65.8%-92.1%) respectively. According to univariate logistic regression analysis, patients with a history of previous non-macrolide drug allergy (p: 0.003, Odds Ratio [OR]: 41, 95% CI: 3.6-456.5) and family history of drug allergy (p = 0.026, OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 1.2-22.5) were at a significantly higher risk of developing macrolide allergy.
conclusionsAlthough IDT at a concentration of 0.05 mg/mL showed higher specificity (92.7%) compared to 0.5 mg/mL (78.9%), given its limited sensitivity, OPT is still required to confirm the diagnosis.
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.