ArticleThe British journal of radiology2014
Acute adverse reactions to iopromide vs iomeprol: a retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting from a radiology department.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Preprocedural fasting for contrast-enhanced CT: when experience meets evidence.Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- The incidence of skin lesions in contrast media-induced chemical hypersensitivity.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- Nausea and vomiting after exposure to non-ionic contrast media: incidence and risk factors focusing on preparatory fasting.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the safety of iopromide and iomeprol use in a hospital that switched from the former to the latter and found an apparent increase in the number (and a different profile) of adverse reactions reported for iomeprol, putting the safety of its use into question.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of cases of acute reactions to iopromide and iomeprol reported in two successive time periods. Data from examinations using iopromide (62539 CT scans and 10348 urography scans) and iomeprol (34308 CT scans and 2846 urography scans) were obtained from the computer system of the hospital.
resultsFor each period, 154 cases of reactions were reported for iopromide and 86 for iomeprol, being severe in 10 (6.5%) patients for iopromide vs 17 (19.8%) patients for iomeprol; a statistically significant difference of p<0.003 was recorded. The most frequent adverse reactions (%/%) for iopromide/iomeprol were urticaria (29.1/17.2), pruritus (22.6/15.6), upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (12.1/16.7), oedema (4.3/0), erythemas (3.4/5.0), nausea or vomiting (1.2/11.7) and chest pain (0/3.9) (p<0.0001 for the global comparison). The distribution of the reactions (%/%) by System Organ Class for iopromide/iomeprol was skin (56.7/41.1), respiratory (19.2/26.7), vascular (6.8/2.2), general (5.3/7.2), gastrointestinal (4.6/15.0) and others (7.4/7.9) (p<0.0002 for the global comparison).
conclusionAdverse reactions were more severe for iomeprol. Skin and vascular reactions with no chest pain were more frequent for iopromide, whereas gastrointestinal reactions were more frequent for iomeprol. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Comparative studies of media contrast safety are scarce and summary information on product characteristics is insufficient. This study showed the differences in severity and profile of adverse reactions between iopromide and iomeprol.
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.