MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403683451 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxae067.010

11 Is emergency department transfer always required following anaphylaxis and epinephrine use?

2024· article· en· W4403683451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren Perlman, Sofianne Gabrielli, Ann E. Clarke, Luca Delli Colli, Marina Delli Colli, Judy Morris, Jocelyn Gravel, Rodrick Lim, Edmond S. Chan, Ran D. Goldman, Andrew O’Keefe, Jennifer Gerdts, Derek K. Chu, Julia Upton, Elana Hochstadter, Jocelyn Moisan, Adam Bretholz, Christine McCusker, Jennifer L. P. Protudjer, Elissa M. Abrams, Elinor Simons, Moshe Ben‐Shoshan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentAnaphylaxisEpinephrineMedicineMedical emergencyAnesthesiaEmergency medicineAllergyNursingImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients known for anaphylaxis are advised to always carry 2 epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI) with them. With epinephrine being the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, current guidelines recommend prompt EAI administration, followed by observation in the emergency department (ED) for 4 hours. Data supporting transfer to the ED in all cases after epinephrine are sparse. Recent North American allergy guidelines no longer suggest that ED presentation after EAI use is required for all cases of anaphylaxis. Objectives We aimed to describe the need for additional ED treatment in children known for food-triggered anaphylaxis who received at least 1 EAI pre-hospital. Design/Methods Data on children under 18 years with food-induced anaphylaxis who received at least one dose of pre-hospital epinephrine was collected from the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry (C-CARE) from seven hospitals. A standardized questionnaire obtained information on symptoms, allergens, comorbidities, and pre-hospital and in-hospital management. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with ED management, among children who received 1, 2 or 3 or more doses of epinephrine pre-hospital. Results From 2011 to 2023, 1054 children with known food-triggered anaphylaxis and who used one or more EAIs pre-hospital were enrolled in C-CARE. The mean age at reaction was 8.2 (standard deviation [SD] 5.3) years, 648 (60.8%) were male and 82 (7.8%) of reactions were severe (defined as loss of bowel control, cyanosis, respiratory arrest, hypotension and/or circulatory collapse, dysrhythmia, severe bradycardia and/or cardiac arrest, confusion, and loss of consciousness). Primary triggers included peanuts (n=280; 26.6%) followed by tree nuts (n=173; 16.4%). 193 patients (18.3%) had known asthma and 201 received additional dose(s) of epinephrine in the ED, the majority of whom (177, 88.1%) received one dose. Only 2.9% of patients required admission. Among all patients, reactions to egg were less likely to require additional epinephrine (aOR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83, 0.99), and more likely with severe reactions (aOR 1.24; 95% CI 1.14-1.35). Among patients who received only one EAI pre-hospital, severe reactions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.31) and reactions to tree nuts (aOR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.20) were associated with increased odds of an additional dose of epinephrine in hospital. Conclusion One-fifth of anaphylaxis cases that used EAI require an additional dose of epinephrine in ED. Children with severe reactions and reactions to tree nuts are more likely to require additional doses; these cases should be considered for ED transfer and treatment following pre-hospital EAI use.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research→French-language works237,207→