ArticleFrontiers in allergy2025
Case Report: Not all recurrent "idiopathic" anaphylaxis is idiopathic.
Article in Frontiers 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.
- Editorial: Anaphylaxis challenges: idiopathic and rare causes.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Anaphylaxis is the most severe manifestation of systemic immediate hypersensitivity, yet the underlying trigger often remains elusive. When routine history and allergy testing fail to identify a cause, the condition is classified as idiopathic anaphylaxis. Food additives, although uncommon culprits, may be overlooked, particularly in atopic individuals. Methods: We report a case of a 39-year-old woman with recurrent anaphylaxis initially diagnosed as idiopathic. Standard allergy testing, including extended skin prick and specific IgE panels, was negative. Due to a temporal association with restaurant-prepared food, an additive hypersensitivity was suspected. A detailed dietary history and targeted skin prick testing were employed using both commercial and in-house preparations of food colorants. Results: SPT was positive for carmine-containing red food colorants, including a commercially available gel and a prepared cochineal extract. Control subjects tested negative. sIgE to carmine was equivocal. The patient was educated about allergen avoidance and has remained symptom-free following elimination of carmine from her diet, cosmetics, and medications. Conclusion: This case underscores the importance of considering food additives, particularly carmine, in patients with unexplained anaphylaxis. Structured re-evaluation, patient-guided dietary review, and custom allergen testing may be essential in identifying hidden allergens. Clinicians should be vigilant about uncommon triggers when routine investigations fail to identify the cause.
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.