Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35461399›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022

Doctor I Have an Iodine Allergy.

Michael W Stewart

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Acta medica Philippina · 2025
    Article
  3. Povidone-iodine nasal spray (NasodineFrontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael W StewartDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo School of Medicine, 4500 San Pablo Rd., Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. stewart.michael@mayo.edu.
Jacksonville College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ophthalmologists frequently face patients who refuse asepsis protocols involving povidone-iodine (PI) due to claims of an allergy to iodine. Such patients usually base this claim on previous reactions to shellfish consumption or to imaging procedures that used iodine-based contrast agents. Allergy to iodine, however, is biologically impossible, and iodine deficiency causes severe developmental problems, including mental retardation. Furthermore, shellfish allergy is due to tropomyosins in muscle tissue, and reactions to intravascular contrast dyes are due to hyperosmolar solutions; neither "allergy" is due to iodine. PI, which contains 9-12% iodine, is the preferred antiseptic for ophthalmic procedures. Experience shows that PI can be administered safely to patients claiming iodine allergy. True allergy to PI is rare and, if indicated, skin patch testing can be performed prior to surgery. Patients who react adversely to highly concentrated (5-10%) PI usually experience toxicity to the corneal and conjunctival epithelium after topical administration. Dilute (0.1-0.25%) PI kills microbes quicker than higher concentrations but for shorter periods of time because the total dose of iodine is smaller. Repeated administration (every 20-30 s) of dilute PI effectively kills microbes for as long as necessary with little risk of epithelial toxicity.

Indexed as

AllergiesAsepsisContrast dyeIntravitreal injectionsIodinePovidone-iodineShellfishSurgery

Identifiers

PMID35461399
PMCPMC9114274
OpenAlexW4224325245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.