PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of adult patients in the clinical setting report to be allergic to penicillin. However, in most cases, penicillin allergy is not confirmed. Due to the negative aspects associated with erroneous penicillin allergy, the implementation of active delabelling processes for penicillin allergy is an important part of antibiotic stewardship programmes. Depending on the clinical setting, different factors need to be considered during implementation. This review examines the effectiveness of different delabelling interventions and summarises components and structures that facilitate, support or constrain structured penicillin allergy delabelling.
METHODS: This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess or rule out uncertain penicillin allergy. To improve completeness, two further databases are also searched for grey literature. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analysed. In addition, exclusion criteria for participation in the delabelling intervention and criteria for not delabelling penicillin allergy will be summarised. In case of failed protocols, these are highlighted and quantitatively analysed if possible. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
BACKGROUND: Because individual patient-related data are not analysed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
METHODS: This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess or rule out uncertain penicillin allergy. To improve completeness, two further databases are also searched for grey literature. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analysed. In addition, exclusion criteria for participation in the delabelling intervention and criteria for not delabelling penicillin allergy will be summarised. In case of failed protocols, these are highlighted and quantitatively analysed if possible. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
BACKGROUND: Because individual patient-related data are not analysed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
摘要：
背景：临床上高达15%的成年患者报告对青霉素过敏。然而,在大多数情况下,青霉素过敏未确认。由于与错误的青霉素过敏相关的负面方面，实施青霉素过敏的主动去标签程序是抗生素管理计划的重要组成部分。根据临床情况，在实施过程中需要考虑不同的因素。这篇综述研究了不同的去标签干预措施的有效性，并总结了促进，支持或限制结构性青霉素过敏脱标签。
方法：本综述将遵循系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目。数据库MEDLINE（通过PubMed），EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆进行了搜索，以发现报告任何干预措施的研究，评估或排除不确定的青霉素过敏。为了提高完整性，还搜索了另外两个数据库的灰色文献。研究设计,干预类型,参与的专业团体，有效性,局限性,障碍,促进因素，临床设置和相关的调节因素将被提取和分析。此外,我们将总结参与去标签干预的排除标准和不去标签青霉素过敏的标准.如果协议失败，如果可能的话，这些都会被强调和定量分析。两名独立的审阅者将执行筛选过程和数据提取。不一致的决定将通过第三审核员的审查来解决。个别研究的偏差评估将使用纽卡斯尔渥太华量表进行。
背景：由于未分析与患者相关的个体数据，不需要道德批准。该评论将发表在同行评审的科学杂志上。
方法：本综述将遵循系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目。数据库MEDLINE（通过PubMed），EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆进行了搜索，以发现报告任何干预措施的研究，评估或排除不确定的青霉素过敏。为了提高完整性，还搜索了另外两个数据库的灰色文献。研究设计,干预类型,参与的专业团体，有效性,局限性,障碍,促进因素，临床设置和相关的调节因素将被提取和分析。此外,我们将总结参与去标签干预的排除标准和不去标签青霉素过敏的标准.如果协议失败，如果可能的话，这些都会被强调和定量分析。两名独立的审阅者将执行筛选过程和数据提取。不一致的决定将通过第三审核员的审查来解决。个别研究的偏差评估将使用纽卡斯尔渥太华量表进行。
背景：由于未分析与患者相关的个体数据，不需要道德批准。该评论将发表在同行评审的科学杂志上。
