SynthesisInfection2026
Effectiveness, barriers, and facilitating factors of strategies for active delabeling of patients with penicillin allergy labels: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Infection, 2026. 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.
- Penicillin allergy documentation in the UAE: 10-year trends and stewardship implications.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergy specialists in the elective surgical setting: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol.Anaesthesia reportsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPenicillin allergy is the most frequently reported allergy in hospitalized patients, although rarely confirmed. Given the negative outcomes associated with incorrect penicillin allergy diagnoses, implementation of programmatic delabeling strategies is important for successful antibiotic stewardship. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of different delabeling strategies and highlights elements and settings that facilitate or constrict their implementation.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA-statement PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and grey literature databases "Worldcat" and "OpenGrey" were searched for studies reporting on interventions to identify, evaluate, or rule out incorrect penicillin allergy in hospitalized adults. Data extraction included settings, intervention types, and their effectiveness, barriers, facilitators, and regulatory factors.
resultsThis review included 42 studies, involving 6269 patients undergoing penicillin allergy delabeling, with 5017 (80%) successfully delabeled. Effectiveness varied from 32% to 99%. Skin testing had the highest success rate at 87%, followed by a combination of skin testing and oral challenge (84%), and direct oral challenges (77%). Direct delabeling alone had a lower effectiveness (67%), which improved to 80% when paired with oral challenges. Key facilitators included standardized algorithms and involvement of interdisciplinary teams. Barriers included patient refusal, staff resistance, time constraints, and financial limitations, particularly in smaller hospitals.
conclusionDependent on financial and staffing resources, oral challenges and direct delabeling after risk stratification may be alternatives to resource-intensive methods, such as skin testing, for successful delabeling. To address barriers to widespread delabeling implementation, patient and provider education must be improved, interprofessional collaboration enhanced, and standardized protocols developed.
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.