Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions aimed at delabeling low-risk penicillin allergies with consideration for sex and gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately, 10% of people report a penicillin allergy; however, more than 90% can safely undergo delabeling after a detailed history, oral challenge, or other investigations such as penicillin skin testing (PST). Although PST is the gold standard, the results can be heterogeneous, and awaiting specialist assessment may take an inordinate amount of time. Therefore, oral provocation challenge has become acceptable for individuals with low-risk penicillin allergy histories. There also appears to be an association with increased prevalence of adverse drug reaction reporting in female individuals, which may translate to penicillin allergy prevalence; however, the evidence has not been assessed through a sex and gender lens. This systematic review will identify and synthesize the findings from studies that report measures of effectiveness and safety of interventions aimed at delabeling penicillin allergies in low-risk individuals. Information related to sex and gender will be extracted, where available, to understand potential differences in allergy reporting and patient outcomes. METHODS: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Centre for Review and Dissemination's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care will be used as frameworks for conducting this systematic review. The literature search will be conducted by a medical librarian (B. M. M.) and will consist of a search strategy to identify and retrieve published studies that meet our inclusion criteria. Studies that require penicillin skin testing (PST) as a step prior to other interventions will be excluded. Integrated knowledge translation involving co-design was carried out for this systematic review protocol creation. Data extraction will be conducted at four levels: (1) study level, (2) patient level, (3) intervention level, and (4) outcome level. A narrative descriptive synthesis of results and risk of bias of all included studies will be provided, and, if relevant, a meta-analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: The dissemination of findings from this knowledge synthesis to various stakeholders is intended to inform on options for evidence-based interventions to aid in delabeling penicillin allergies in individuals with a low risk of experiencing a hypersensitivity reaction. Detailed reporting on the characteristics of delabeling interventions as well as the effectiveness of similar interventions will benefit policy makers considering the implementation of a penicillin allergy delabeling protocol. Additionally, findings from this systematic review will report on the current evidence regarding the role of sex and gender in both the prevalence and outcomes associated with the presence of penicillin allergies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022336457.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".