Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26427700›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Protective effect against repeat adverse reactions to iodinated contrast medium: Premedication vs. changing the contrast medium.

Shoko Abe, Hozumi Fukuda, Kimiko Tobe, Kenji Ibukuro

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shoko AbeDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, 1 Kandaizumi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8643, Japan. abe-mitsui@umin.org.
Hozumi FukudaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, 1 Kandaizumi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8643, Japan.
Kimiko TobeDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, 1 Kandaizumi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8643, Japan.
Kenji IbukuroDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, 1 Kandaizumi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8643, Japan.
Memorial Hospital of South Bend · USMitsui Memorial Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the protective effect of premedication and changing contrast media (CM) against repeat adverse reactions (ARs) to iodinated CM.

methodsBetween January 2006 and September 2014, 771 cases with previous ARs to CM were administered CM. The same CM that had caused ARs previously was administered to 491 cases (220 without premedication [defined as the control group], and 271 with premedication [the premedication alone group]). A different CM from the previous CM was given to 280 cases (58 without premedication [the changing CM alone group], and 222 with premedication [the premedication and changing CM group]).

resultsThe control group had 61 repeat ARs (27.7%). The premedication alone group had 47 ARs (17.3%, p<0.01). The changing CM alone group had 3 ARs (5.2%, p<0.001). Three ARs (7.9%) were observed in 38 cases changing from one to another low-osmolar nonionic CM. Twenty cases with previous ARs to the high-osmolar CM and to the low-osmolar ionic CM showed no ARs. The premedication and changing CM group had 6 ARs (2.7%, p<0.001).

conclusionPremedication prior to contrast for patients with previous ARs may be protective, however, changing CM was more effective. KEY POINTS: • In patients with previous adverse reactions, changing contrast media is recommended. • Premedication is unnecessary against previous reactions to high-osmolar or ionic CM. • Changing from one to another low-osmolar non-ionic CM may be effective.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImage EnhancementIohexolIopamidolMaleMiddle AgedPremedicationRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAIohexolIopamidolHypersensitivityIodinated contrast mediaPremedicationRepeat adverse reactionSafety

Identifiers

PMID26427700
OpenAlexW2129397417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.