↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective comparison of false negative skin test rates in penicillin allergy, using pencilloyl-poly-lysine and minor determinants or Penicillin G, followed by open challenge

Overview of attention for article published in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A retrospective comparison of false negative skin test rates in penicillin allergy, using pencilloyl-poly-lysine and minor determinants or Penicillin G, followed by open challenge
Published in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13223-015-0098-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lana Rosenfield, Chrystyna Kalicinsky, Richard Warrington

Abstract

A history of penicillin allergy in patients is common, but only 10-15 % are truly allergic. While the gold standard for diagnosing penicillin allergy is challenge, it is not recommended that this be done without first carrying out diagnostic skin testing. This is carried out with the major determinant benzylpenicilloyl (PPL) and the minor determinant mixture (MDM), consisting of penilloate, penicilloate and Penicillin G. However, since availability of the MDM is limited, Penicillin G alone has been used. A retrospective chart review was carried out on patients tested for penicillin allergy in the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Clinic at the Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Canada between 2005 and 2013. A total of 521 patients charts were reviewed, of whom 240 had skin testing, ImmunoCap(®) for IgE to Penicillin G and V and had oral challenges with penicillin, amoxicillin or cloxacillin. 17/240 (7.5 %) were skin test positive, 8 to PPL, 4 to MDM and 5 to Penicillin G. One was also positive on ImmunoCap(®) testing. Three patients had negative skin tests but weakly positive ImmunoCap(®). 222 patients with negative skin tests and serological tests were challenged. Of these, 12 patients reacted to challenge. Three of the challenges were equivocal. Of the nine patients with definite positive challenges, three were tested with Penicillin G and six with MDM. Therefore the false negative rates for testing were 2.3 % with PPL and Penicillin G and 6.97 % for PPL and MDM. The difference was not significant (p = 0.0856). In this group of patients with a history of penicillin allergy tested with the major determinant of benzyl penicillin and either MDM or Penicillin G, there was no difference in the rate of false negative testing, based on oral penicillin challenges. Therefore, Penicillin G can be safely used as an alternative to MDM in diagnosing penicillin allergy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,026,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#196
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,947
of 392,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 392,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.