ArticleLa Radiologia medica2016
Should patients with risk factors be tested for hypersensitivity to contrast media: a prospective study.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Bridging the gap between bench and clinic: the importance of understanding the mechanism of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media.Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2020Review
- Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media (CM), atopy, atopic disease, drug allergy, and age (20-29 or >55) are risk factors for CM hypersensitivity reactions. Our aim was to evaluate whether these risk factors should prompt skin testing for diagnosing CM allergy.
methodsThe study was conducted among patients referred for allergy testing with CM. Skin tests were performed with non ionic or gadolinium CM, recommended by a radiologist. After completion of tests patients were telephonically queried on their symptoms of reactions.
results151 risk patients (53 men, 98 women; mean age 55.2) were included in the study. Only 13 (9 %) had a history of hypersensitivity reaction to CM. Compared with the other patients, atopy was significantly more common in patients with a history of CM hypersensitivity reactions. Female gender and mean age were also higher, but not significant. All of the tests with CMs were negative. Only one patient reported urticaria within 1-2 min after administration of CM (telephonically).
conclusionsAtopy can increase the risk of CM allergy. However, skin tests with CMs may be inefficient, unnecessary, and time-consuming, except in cases with a history of CM allergy. Premedication protocols appear to be beneficial in patients with a history of CM allergy and cannot be recommended for patients with well-controlled asthma, rhinitis, atopic dermatitis or history of drug allergy.
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.