Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40917873›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in allergy2025

Mugwort sensitization and asthma as predictors of food-induced anaphylactic shock in children: a retrospective study in Northern China.

Zibei Zhou, Juan Zhang, Nini Dai, Zailing Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zibei ZhouDepartment of Pediatrics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Juan ZhangDepartment of Pediatrics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Nini DaiDepartment of Pediatrics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zailing LiDepartment of Pediatrics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Food-induced anaphylactic shock is the most severe and life-threatening manifestation of food allergy in children. However, its underlying risk factors remain poorly defined, especially in pediatric populations. This study aimed to identify independent predictors of food-induced anaphylactic shock by analyzing clinical and immunological data from a tertiary hospital in Northern China. Methods: This retrospective study included 68 children (aged 0-16 years) hospitalized for food-induced anaphylaxis at Peking University Third Hospital from May 2018 to May 2025. Demographic data, clinical manifestations, serum-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) levels, and comorbidities were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of anaphylactic shock. Results: Of 68 patients with food-induced anaphylaxis, 14 (20.6%) experienced anaphylactic shock, with 78.6% of these cases occurring in children older than six years. Wheat and fruits were the most common triggers in the shock group (each 28.6%). Subgroup analysis revealed that 88.9% (8/9) of plant-food-triggered shock cases specifically clustered from April to October, aligning with mugwort pollen season. sIgE levels to inhalant allergens, especially mugwort, were significantly higher in the shock group ( Conclusions: Mugwort sensitization and asthma are independent risk factors for food-induced anaphylactic shock in children. Early identification of these risk markers may support early risk stratification and seasonal dietary interventions.

Indexed as

anaphylactic shockasthmachildrenfood allergymugwortrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID40917873
PMCPMC12408619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.