Guidelines recommend that patients at risk of anaphylaxis are given an anaphylaxis management plan (AMP) providing advice on symptom recognition and emergency management. However, the format and content of plans is not standardized.
The objective of this study was to review the design and contents of different AMPs available in English.
A systematic internet search identified AMPs published online. Each plan was analyzed for design and content (including signs and symptoms indicative of anaphylaxis and the actions to be taken). The content was compared with an e-Delphi-derived statement of the key characteristics of an AMP.
The systematic search identified 41 plans from 29 different sources. The majority of plans identified were personalized management plans for individuals (78%); the others were designed for institutions. Most AMPs addressed both mild/moderate and severe allergic reactions and had different instructions related to the degree of severity. Thirty-seven individual symptoms were mentioned as indicators of anaphylaxis. Only 55% of plans that recommended the administration of an adrenaline autoinjector gave further instructions on how to do this. Only 17% of plans contained comprehensive instructions on safe patient positioning.
There are a wide variety of AMPs in English available online. Plans are similar in design, but differ in content. None of the currently available plans contain all the desirable components recommended in the literature. Because of the variation between plans, when practitioners select an AMP for their patient, they need to be attentive to the content of the plan and its appropriateness for that individual.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
12%
Computer Science
2
12%
Business, Management and Accounting
1
6%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
6%
Other
1
6%
Unknown
4
24%
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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,490,773
of 28,574,713 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
#1,034
of 4,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,198
of 334,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
#18
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,574,713 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 4,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 334,688 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
