ArticleInternational archives of allergy and immunology2026
Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms in the Electronic Medical Record.
Article in International archives of allergy and immunology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDrug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare severe cutaneous adverse reaction (AR), which can be life threatening [J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(5):693.e1-14]. The reporting of DRESS in Australian electronic medical records (EMRs) has not been studied.
methodsA dual ascertainment strategy was employed in this multi-centre, retrospective study. Part 1 involved data collection from a 2.5-year cohort of consecutive inpatient admissions. Patients with an AR label of DRESS, eosinophilia or severe rash were identified, along with the causative agents. Part 2 involved evaluating the AR label documentation for patients from an independently derived list of confirmed DRESS cases from an immunology department register. Case note review was undertaken for all possible cases of DRESS that were identified, and RegiSCAR scores were calculated.
resultsOf the 135,080 inpatients from Part 1, there were 17 patients (prevalence 12.59 per 100,000) with at least possible DRESS (RegiSCAR >2). The prevalence of patients with a RegiSCAR score consistent with probable or definite DRESS was 6.66 per 100,000 individuals. Among the 135,080 patients, 12 individuals had a DRESS AR label on the EMR (prevalence 8.88 per 100,000). In Part 2 of the study, 16 confirmed DRESS cases were identified from an Immunology department register over a period of 8 years. The mean age of this group was 49.3 at diagnosis (SD 21.58) and 50% were female (n = 8). Of the 16 cases, 14 (87.5%) were correctly labelled as "DRESS syndrome" in the EMR. In total, there were 31 patients with at least possible DRESS identified, with two cases (6.45%) of false negative AR documentation, and one case (3.23%) of false positive AR documentation. The most common drug culprits were vancomycin (n = 11, 29.7%), penicillin-based antibiotics (n = 9, 24.3%), and carbamazepine (n = 3, 8.1%).
conclusionThe prevalence of EMR-documented DRESS syndrome in South Australia is higher than seen in other studies. Most DRESS was caused by antibiotics. The majority of patients were documented correctly in the EMR as far as can be determined.
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.