ArticleThe British journal of radiology2013
Evaluation of adverse reactions to contrast media in the hospital.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of Hypersensitivity to Iodinated Contrast Media: Insights from a Six-Year Cohort of 26,465 Procedures.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Misuse, Abuse and Medication Errors' Adverse Events Associated with Opioids-A Systematic Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Observational
- Differences between Drug-Induced and Contrast Media-Induced Adverse Reactions Based on Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions.PloS one · 2015Article
- Assessment of the Radio-contrast Media-Induced Self-Reported Adverse Drug Reactions in a Tertiary Care Hospital of North India: A Prospective Study.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine and analyse the characteristics of contrast media adverse reactions (CM-ARs) reported in a hospital.
methodsA retrospective review of CM-ARs from the electronic spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) report system between January 2011 and August 2012 was conducted. CM-ARs were evaluated in terms of causality, severity, preventability and affected organs. Also, agreement and correlation among the tools used to evaluate CM-ARs were analysed.
resultsThe overall reaction rate was 1.5% (n = 286). In total, 269 CM-ARs were identified. For ADR causality, 96.7% (n = 260) and 98.5% (n = 265) were evaluated as "probable" ADR using the Naranjo probability scale and the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre causality categories, whereas 98.1% (n = 264) were evaluated as "certain" with Korean algorithm v. II. Of these, 91.4% (n = 246) were mild in severity and 96.7% (n = 260) were unpreventable. Most patients (n = 233, 86.7%) could be managed with observation and/or simple treatment. The most frequent reaction (n = 383, 79.5%) was dermatological. Spearman's correlation coefficient was 0.667 (p < 0.01), and the agreement was 98.1% between the Naranjo scale and the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre categories. No relationship was seen between CM-AR severity and gender or between in- and outpatients.
conclusionIn our study, most CM-ARs were mild and managed with simple treatment. However, as the number of patients undergoing CT procedures continues to increase, it is essential to identify and observe patients at risk for CM-ARs to prevent severe ADRs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Continuous careful review of reporting and treatment protocols of CM-ARs is needed to prevent morbidity and mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.