ArticleInfection2026
Nationwide survey on penicillin allergy delabeling among German healthcare professionals: knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers.
Article 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 delabeling in a German University Hospital-implementation in inpatient settings: the PenGuin Pilot Study.Infection · 2026Article
- Penicillin Allergy, Really?-A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, to Explore General Practitioner Perspectives on Delabeling Potential in Primary Care.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePenicillin allergy (PA) delabeling optimizes antibiotic prescribing and is a recognized antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) tool. We aimed to characterize current practices and knowledge of PA delabeling in German non-allergist healthcare professionals to define barriers and facilitators for a wider implementation of delabeling strategies.
methodsA nationwide web-based, anonymous survey was distributed to physicians and hospital pharmacists. It covered four domains: demographics, access to AMS, allergy assessment and attitude towards PA delabeling. Responses were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultsA total of 504 responses (249 physicians, 255 pharmacists) were analysed. While 86% of respondents were familiar with the concept of delabeling, only 32% had ever performed it, mostly fewer than 6 times in the past year. 12% of physicians regularly took extended allergy histories, and just 2% always used a standardized method. Only ~ 30% of respondents had onsite access to allergy services. Barriers included lack of time, experience and guidance. Pharmacists frequently cited PA management as outside their role. Despite limited experience, 88% of physicians and 71% of pharmacists expressed interest in delabeling if supported by clear algorithms and institutional support.
conclusionPA delabeling by non-allergists is of great relevance to physicians and pharmacists in Germany but not routinely integrated in clinical pathways, due to missing guidelines, limited resources and unclear role definitions. However, the results of this study highlight the considerable strong potential for implementing structured delabeling strategies-if they are supported by adequate training, clear protocols and sufficiently resourced antimicrobial stewardship teams.
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.