ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
What are patients' and healthcare professionals' views on managing penicillin allergy? A qualitative evidence synthesis.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To review the existing literature on patients' and healthcare professionals' views on managing penicillin allergy and provide an interpretation of the evidence that will inform the development of strategies to increase penicillin allergy evaluation and testing. Methods: We systematically searched six databases for qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting patients' and healthcare professionals' views on managing penicillin allergy. We followed three stages of thematic synthesis, including line-by-line coding, development of descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes, to analyse and interpret the findings of eligible studies. Results: We included 21 papers in the review and using thematic synthesis developed five analytical themes: (i) investigation of penicillin allergy was not a priority; (ii) healthcare systems did not support penicillin allergy assessment; (iii) penicillin allergy assessment required specific training; (iv) uncertainty over responsibility in managing penicillin allergy; and (v) management of penicillin allergy was associated with perception of risk and diagnostic uncertainty. Conclusions: To increase penicillin allergy assessment and testing, the lack of prioritization of penicillin allergy assessment in clinical practice should be addressed. Education of patients and healthcare professionals should emphasize the benefits of penicillin allergy assessment and explain the risks associated with allergy testing and subsequent use of penicillin. Healthcare systems-related barriers hindering penicillin allergy assessment could be reduced through the redesign of electronic medical records and the revision of antibiotic guidelines. Future research should explore novel models for penicillin allergy assessment services involving different healthcare settings.
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.