ReviewInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Post-anaphylaxis observation in the ED: a decade of data challenging the traditional 24-hour rule.
Review in International journal of emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiphasic anaphylaxis remains an under-recognized threat who’s timing directly conflicts with conventional 2–4-hour ED observation practices.
methodsThis narrative review synthesizes evidence published between 2015 and 2025, sourced from PubMed, MEDLINE, and major allergy/immunology society guidelines. A narrative synthesis was chosen due to heterogeneity in definitions and outcome reporting across studies. The analysis focuses on the evolution of risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and the performance of time-based observation strategies to inform contemporary ED disposition policies. KEY
findingsOver the past decade, a paradigm shift has occurred, moving away from fixed observation durations toward risk-stratified approaches. Major practice parameters from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) now emphasize individualized observation based on the severity of the initial event. More than half of clinically significant biphasic events occur after four to six hours, indicating that traditional observation windows are insufficient for many patients. Key predictors of biphasic reactions consistently identified include a severe initial presentation (e.g., hypotension, hypoxia), the need for more than one dose of epinephrine, and a delay in initial epinephrine administration. Recent meta-analytic work has quantified the performance of observation cut-offs, demonstrating a pooled negative predictive value (NPV) of ~ 95% at 1 h, rising to ~ 97% at ≥ 6 h, and > 98% for observation periods exceeding 8–12 h. This suggests that observation periods under 6 h may be insufficient for many patients, aligning with UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, which typically recommends 6–12 h of observation, particularly when risk factors are present.
conclusionEDs should adopt risk-stratified observation pathways. A low-risk pathway (e.g., rapid and complete resolution after a single epinephrine dose, known food trigger, no cardiovascular or respiratory compromise) may permit shorter observation if coupled with a robust discharge education bundle. Conversely, a high-risk pathway (e.g., delayed or ≥ 2 epinephrine doses, hypotension/hypoxia, non-food/unknown trigger, or comorbidities like asthma or beta-blocker use) warrants prolonged observation (≥ 6 h) or hospital admission. Future research should prioritize prospective, multicenter ED registries to precisely document the timing of treatment-requiring relapses and further refine the dose-response relationship between observation duration and the risk of missed biphasic events, stratified by age and trigger. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.