ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2015
The potential utility of iodinated contrast media (ICM) skin testing in patients with ICM hypersensitivity.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data Mining of Adverse Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media Based on a Municipal Spontaneous Reporting System in China.Current medical science · 2025Article
- Risk factor analysis of iodinated contrast medium-related hypersensitivity reactions.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: potential mechanisms and clinical management.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Drug provocation tests (DPTs) of contrast media: Useful or not useful? - A narrative review.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Review
- Case Report: A Rare Case of Iodixanol-Induced Anaphylactic Shock in Cerebral Angiography.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2024Article
- Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Radiocontrast Media Hypersensitivity Reactions in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Cross-reactivity among iodinated contrast agents: should we be concerned?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Non-IgE-Mediated Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2021Review
- Delabeling Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity: How Far Can You Safely Go?The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2020Article
- Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by Triamcinolone in a Patient with Atopic Dermatitis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Should patients with risk factors be tested for hypersensitivity to contrast media: a prospective study.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
- Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyReview
- Successful desensitization to radiocontrast media in two high-risk cardiac patients.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are relatively common. However, there are few data to determine the clinical utility of immunologic evaluation of ICM. To evaluate the utility of ICM skin testing in patients with ICM hypersensitivity, 23 patients (17 immediate and 6 delayed reactions) were enrolled from 3 university hospitals in Korea. With 6 commonly used ICM including iopromide, iohexol, ioversol, iomeprol, iopamidol and iodixanol, skin prick (SPT), intradermal (IDT) and patch tests were performed. Of 10 patients with anaphylaxis, 3 (30.0%) and 6 (60.0%) were positive respectively on SPTs and IDTs with the culprit ICM. Three of 6 patients with urticaria showed positive IDTs. In total, 11 (64.7%) had positive on either SPT or IDT. Three of 6 patients with delayed rashes had positive response to patch test and/or delayed IDT. Among 5 patients (3 anaphylaxis, 1 urticaria and 1 delayed rash) taken subsequent radiological examinations, 3 patients administered safe alternatives according to the results of skin testing had no adverse reaction. However, anaphylaxis developed in the other 2 patients administered the culprit ICM again. With 64.7% (11/17) and 50% (3/6) of the sensitivities of corresponding allergic skin tests with culprit ICM for immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, the present study suggests that skin tests is useful for the diagnosis of ICM hypersensitivity and for selecting safe ICM and preventing a recurrence of anaphylaxis caused by the same ICM.
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.