ArticleMedicine2026
Emergency response and clinical treatment analysis of a mass wasp sting incident involving 38 tourists: A case report.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleMass wasp sting incidents pose a significant public health threat, particularly to non-local tourists in scenic areas who face challenges such as unfamiliar healthcare systems and disrupted travel plans, which can compromise treatment compliance and outcomes. This study analyzes the emergency response and clinical management of such an incident to identify effective strategies for this specific population. PATIENT CONCERNS: A total of 38 non-local tourists were stung by wasps at a scenic spot in Liuzhou, Guangxi. Primary patient concerns and clinical presentations included localized symptoms (redness, swelling, pain, and itching at sting sites) and systemic symptoms (dizziness, headache, anxiety, and rashes). DIAGNOSES: All patients were definitively diagnosed with wasp stings. Severity was classified according to the Chinese Expert Consensus on Standardized Diagnosis and Treatment of Wasp Stings, resulting in 33 mild cases (≤10 stings) and 5 moderate cases (>10 stings with systemic symptoms).
interventionsA multi-departmental emergency response was activated, involving the 120 dispatch center, fire department, and the hospital's toxicology treatment center, achieving a median hospital arrival time of 35 minutes. Standardized in-hospital treatment included local wound management (iodine disinfection and wet compresses with dexamethasone and lidocaine), systemic therapy (IV dexamethasone, oral Jidesheng snake antivenom tablets, IM tetanus antitoxin), supportive care (hydration, oxygen), and proactive telephone follow-ups on days 3 and 7 post-discharge. OUTCOMES: All 38 patients recovered and were discharged. The median observation time was 8 hours for mild cases, while moderate cases were hospitalized for 2 days. Follow-up on day 3 revealed delayed-onset headaches or rashes in 8 patients (8/38), which completely resolved with intervention by day 7. No severe cases or fatalities occurred. LESSONS: The successful outcome underscores the value of a seamless pre-hospital emergency response system and standardized clinical protocols (e.g., the "Four Duals" approach) for managing mass wasp stings. Proactive follow-up is crucial for non-local tourists to address compliance challenges and manage delayed symptoms effectively, suggesting that integrated emergency care systems and tailored patient management are key to improving outcomes in transient populations.
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.