CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1994
Radioallergosorbent testing for penicillin allergy in family practice.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Worrall G J, Hull C, Briffett E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine (a) the prevalence of patients supposedly allergic to penicillin who have a positive radioallergosorbent test (RAST) result for penicillin G or V and (b) the predictive power of family physicians' clinical judgement that a patient who is supposedly allergic to penicillin will have a positive RAST result.
DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cross-sectional observational study.
SETTING: Eleven primary care practices in Newfoundland; 10 were in a rural setting.
PATIENTS: Of 110 consecutive adult patients with a supposed allergy to penicillin 97 agreed to participate in the study; 92 underwent RAST.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients helped physicians complete a questionnaire and had a venous blood sample taken for the RAST. Physicians examined the clinical history and judged whether the patient was likely to have a positive RAST result.
MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of positive and negative RAST results for penicillin V and G.
RESULTS: Of the 92 patients 8 had a positive RAST result and 84 a negative one. The positive predictive power of a "good" clinical history (e.g., urticaria, swollen eyes, tongue or lips, or an anaphylactic reaction witnessed by a physician) was low (10%); the negative predictive power of a "poor" clinical history (e.g., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, nonspecific rash or fainting) was 92%.
CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of primary care patients with a supposed allergy to penicillin will have a positive RAST result. In addition, physicians' predictions of allergy in such patients are imprecise.
DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cross-sectional observational study.
SETTING: Eleven primary care practices in Newfoundland; 10 were in a rural setting.
PATIENTS: Of 110 consecutive adult patients with a supposed allergy to penicillin 97 agreed to participate in the study; 92 underwent RAST.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients helped physicians complete a questionnaire and had a venous blood sample taken for the RAST. Physicians examined the clinical history and judged whether the patient was likely to have a positive RAST result.
MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of positive and negative RAST results for penicillin V and G.
RESULTS: Of the 92 patients 8 had a positive RAST result and 84 a negative one. The positive predictive power of a "good" clinical history (e.g., urticaria, swollen eyes, tongue or lips, or an anaphylactic reaction witnessed by a physician) was low (10%); the negative predictive power of a "poor" clinical history (e.g., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, nonspecific rash or fainting) was 92%.
CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of primary care patients with a supposed allergy to penicillin will have a positive RAST result. In addition, physicians' predictions of allergy in such patients are imprecise.