ArticleInternal medicine journal2026
Adherence to the Australian acute anaphylaxis clinical care standard and outcomes in a regional Queensland specialist outpatient service.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 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.
- MEAT PIES: Mammalian Meat Allergy in Patients Investigated for Gastrointestinal Symptoms: Detection of Mammalian Meat Allergy in the Gastroenterology Outpatient Department, Cairns Hospital, Queensland, Australia.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no published information on the recognition and management of anaphylaxis in regional Queensland. The establishment of a clinical immunology and allergy service for the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service (CHHHS) has enabled the exploration of patient outcomes.
aimsTo analyse anaphylaxis presentations, management and outcomes in a regional Queensland cohort compared with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) Acute Anaphylaxis Clinical Care Standard.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was undertaken with patients identified through clinical immunology and allergy clinic letters. All adults with a clinical immunologist and allergist diagnosis of anaphylaxis were included from service inception (1 March 2016) until 1 January 2024.
resultsClinic letter database searching identified 636 patients with the word anaphylaxis in their problem list. A total of 220 patients (134 females, 61%) with a median age 42 years (IQR: 31-47 years) experienced 303 episodes of anaphylaxis; 350 did not meet inclusion criteria. Anaphylaxis was recognised and adrenaline was administered in 213 episodes (79%). Twenty-two of 46 patients (where site of intramuscular injection was recorded) received an adrenaline injection in the deltoid muscle. The median time to first dose of adrenaline and the duration of monitoring was 8 min and 6 h respectively. The most frequently reported causes for anaphylaxis were drugs/vaccines/contrast media (55 episodes, 18%), food (53 episodes, 17%), idiopathic (46 episodes, 15%) and venom (38 episodes, 13%).
conclusionsThe treatment of anaphylaxis generally aligned with the ACSQHC Acute Anaphylaxis Clinical Care Standard; the high proportion of patients excluded demonstrates that more research is needed regarding the diagnostic accuracy in anaphylaxis.
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.