ReviewCureus2026
Anaphylaxis Management in Acute Care Settings: A Review Based on UK Guidelines.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anaphylaxis, a severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction, requires immediate recognition and management within acute care settings. This article reviews current guidelines and practices for anaphylaxis management in the UK, synthesizing evidence from various sources, including the UK Resuscitation Council (2020), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines (2021), and British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) Guidelines (2016), to highlight key recommendations and areas for improvement. The review begins with an overview of the pathophysiology of anaphylaxis, emphasizing the importance of early identification and the initiation of treatment. Current UK guidelines advocate for a systematic approach that includes the immediate use of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line therapy, alongside adjunctive measures such as positioning and airway management. The role of secondary interventions, such as antihistamines and corticosteroids, is also discussed concerning their efficacy and timing. Furthermore, the article addresses the importance of post-anaphylaxis care, including monitoring, patient education, and the provision of adrenaline auto-injectors. Barriers to effective management, such as gaps in clinician training and public awareness, are examined, providing suggestions for enhancing education and readiness. This review underscores the need for a comprehensive and unified approach to anaphylaxis management in acute care, aligning clinical practices with established guidelines to improve patient outcomes. Enhanced awareness and training for healthcare professionals, alongside community engagement, are crucial to minimizing morbidity and mortality associated with anaphylaxis in the UK.
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.