ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2014
Shellfish allergy and relation to iodinated contrast media: United Kingdom survey.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2014. 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, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indocyanine-Green-Guided Partial Nephrectomy: A Narrative Review Addressing Protocol Heterogeneity, Perioperative Functional and Oncological Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- The Use of Iodophor-Impregnated Drapes in Patients With Iodine-Related Allergies: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Shelling the myth: allergies to Iodine containing substances and risk of reaction to Iodinated contrast media.Emergency radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Antibacterial properties of copper iodide-doped glass ionomer-based materials and effect of copper iodide nanoparticles on collagen degradation.Clinical oral investigations · 2017Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess current practice of United Kingdom cardiologists with respect to patients with reported shellfish/iodine allergy, and in particular the use of iodinated contrast for elective coronary angiography. Moreover we have reviewed the current evidence-base and guidelines available in this area.
methodsA questionnaire survey was send to 500 senior United Kingdom cardiologists (almost 50% cardiologists registered with British Cardiovascular Society) using email and first 100 responses used to analyze practise. We involved cardiologists performing coronary angiograms routinely both at secondary and tertiary centres. Three specific questions relating to allergy were asked: (1) History of shellfish/iodine allergy in pre-angiography assessment; (2) Treatments offered for shellfish/iodine allergy individuals; and (3) Any specific treatment protocol for shellfish/iodine allergy cases. We aimed to establish routine practice in United Kingdom for patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. We also performed comprehensive PubMed search for the available evidence of relationship between shellfish/iodine allergy and contrast media.
resultsA total of 100 responses were received, representing 20% of all United Kingdom cardiologists. Ninety-three replies were received from consultant cardiologists, 4 from non-consultant grades and 3 from cardiology specialist nurses. Amongst the respondents, 66% routinely asked about a previous history of shellfish/iodine allergy. Fifty-six percent would pre-treat these patients with steroids and anti-histamines. The other 44% do nothing, or do nonspecific testing based on their personal experience as following: (1) Skin test with 1 mL of subcutaneous contrast before intravenous contrast; (2) Test dose 2 mL contrast before coronary injection; (3) Close observation for shellfish allergy patients; and (4) Minimal evidence that the steroid and anti-histamine regime is effective but it makes us feel better.
conclusionThere is no evidence that allergy to shellfish alters the risk of reaction to intravenous contrast more than any other allergy and asking about such allergies in pre-angiogram assessment will not provide any additional information except propagating the myth.
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.