ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessment of penicillin allergy evaluation practices among clinicians in China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the perceived clinicians' roles in penicillin allergy assessment among medical staff in tertiary hospitals in China.
designThis was a multicentre cross-sectional survey.
settingThe study was conducted at 89 tertiary hospitals in eastern and western China from March to May 2024.
participantsA survey was conducted involving 8493 medical staff from tertiary hospitals in eastern and western China using multistage sampling. OUTCOME MEASURES: A self-designed questionnaire was used to assess evaluation status of penicillin allergy assessment, including allergy history assessment and recording, skin test result evaluation during hospitalisation, allergic reaction recording at discharge and awareness of allergy assessment teams.
resultsAmong 8493 healthcare professionals (doctors 40.0%, nurses 56.3%, pharmacists 3.7%), significant gaps existed in penicillin allergy documentation: while 92.0% acknowledged the need to document specific drug names, only 66.2% practised this (nurses 62.2% vs pharmacists 82.0%, p<0.01). Nurses dominated skin test evaluation (95.3% participation), with 77.5% of all staff endorsing their primary role. For ambiguous test results, 54.6% preferred multi-person consensus (nurses 63.9%, p<0.01). Post-discharge documentation prioritised drug names (94.4%) over clinical indications (70.3%). Pharmacists demonstrated superior documentation awareness (p<0.05). Only 45.5% confirmed having an antimicrobial allergy assessment team, though clinical pharmacists (89.2%) and specialist nurses (88.2%) were deemed essential members.
conclusionsCurrently, the assessment and recording methods for antimicrobial allergies by the medical staff of tertiary hospitals in China are not sufficiently accurate. Nurses play a key role in the assessment of antimicrobial allergies. Thus, medical staff, especially nurses, should receive more vigorous training, and structured assessment tools for antimicrobial allergies based on clinical decision support systems should be devised for them. Our findings also reiterate the need to establish penicillin allergy assessment teams at the hospital level.
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.