Advertising Disclaimer »
Tools and Links
Reader comments are editor-reviewed before posting. See our author guidelines at http://bit.ly/1qJSFq5
More information about text formats
Thank you for your comment. The authors do not think this statement is inaccurate or misleads the readers. The passage was meant to illustrate the futility of skin testing patients with vague or unknown histories who carry the label of penicillin allergy, which was demonstrated in the study. Patients who carry the label but do not have a supportive history for allergy to the drug, are unlikely to have positive skin testing and are unlikely to be allergic. The statistics you refer to in the Gadde et al 1993 study refers to the patient population who had specific histories consistent with possible allergy to the drug, therefore you would expect them to more likely have positive testing, as you referred to in the comment.
The article, citing Gadde J et al. from 1999, says "In a large study of consecutive patients with or without a history of penicillin allergy, the rate of positive skin testing results in those who were labeled as penicillin allergic with vague histories was 1.7%, which is the same as in those without a history of penicillin allergy." However, that study reported that 7.1% of those labeled as penicillin allergic, 17.3% of those with history of anaphylaxis, 12.4% of those with history of urticaria, and 4% of those with history of exanthem had positive skin tests. The statement in the current article inaccurately reports the previous findings and misleads readers.
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Pediatrics.
NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.