Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scandinavian Clinical Practice Guidelines on the diagnosis, management and follow‐up of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia*

Open access
Kroigaard, M., Garvey, L. H., Gillberg, L., Johansson, S. G. O., Mosbech, H., Florvaag, E., Harboe, T., Eriksson, L. I., Dahlgren, G., Seeman‐Lodding, H., Takala, R., Wattwil, M., Hirlekar, G., Dahlén, B., Guttormsen, A. B.·2007·Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract

The present approach to the diagnosis, management and follow‐up of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia varies in the Scandinavian countries. The main purpose of these Scandinavian Clinical Practice Guidelines is to increase the awareness about anaphylaxis during anaesthesia amongst anaesthesiologists. It is hoped that increased focus on the subject will lead to prompt diagnosis, rapid and correct treatment, and standardised management of patients with anaphylactic reactions during anaesthesia across Scandinavia. The recommendations are based on the best available evidence in the literature, which, owing to the rare and unforeseeable nature of anaphylaxis, mainly includes case series and expert opinion (grade of evidence IV and V). These guidelines include an overview of the epidemiology of anaphylactic reactions during anaesthesia. A treatment algorithm is suggested, with emphasis on the incremental titration of adrenaline (epinephrine) and fluid therapy as first‐line treatment. Recommendations for primary and secondary follow‐up are given, bearing in mind that there are variations in geography and resources in the different countries. A list of National Centres from which anaesthesiologists can seek advice concerning follow‐up procedures is provided. In addition, an algorithm is included with advice on how to manage patients with previous suspected anaphylaxis during anaesthesia. Lastly,Appendix 2 provides an overview of the incidence, mechanisms and possibilities for follow‐up for some common drug groups.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01313.x

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Kroigaard, M., Garvey, L. H., Gillberg, L., Johansson, S. G. O., Mosbech, H., Florvaag, E., Harboe, T., Eriksson, L. I., Dahlgren, G., Seeman‐Lodding, H., Takala, R., Wattwil, M., Hirlekar, G., Dahlén, B., & Guttormsen, A. B.
Venue
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-12
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
655-670
ISSN
  • 0001-5172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-6576
OpenAlex
W1978276472
Cited by
268
References
59
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scandinavian Clinical Practice Guidelines on the diagnosis, management and follow‐up of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01313.x
The paper
Kroigaard, M., Garvey, L. H., Gillberg, L., Johansson, S. G. O., Mosbech, H., Florvaag, E., Harboe, T., Eriksson, L. I., Dahlgren, G., Seeman‐Lodding, H., Takala, R., Wattwil, M., Hirlekar, G., Dahlén, B., & Guttormsen, A. B. (2007). Scandinavian Clinical Practice Guidelines on the diagnosis, management and follow‐up of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia*. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01313.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.