ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2023
Contrast-induced anaphylaxis: does it occur in the medical environment and is it being responded to appropriately?
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive review of current evidence and future directions.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Advances in renal cancer: diagnosis, treatment, and emerging technologies.La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the appropriateness of primary response for anaphylaxis due to iodinated contrast media (ICM) or gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included all patients in whom intravenous contrast agents (five types of ICMs and four types of GBCAs) were administered at our hospital between April 2016 and September 2021. For the patients who developed anaphylaxis, we obtained data on the time records of contrast injection, anaphylaxis onset, and intramuscular adrenaline (epinephrine) administration.
resultsOf the 76,555 ICM and 30,731 GBCA administrations, anaphylaxis occurred in 49 cases (0.05%), and in 48 cases (98.0%) the onset was within 30 min after administration with widely distributed times (median, 7.5 min; interquartile range, 4.5-10.8 min; max, 26 min). Intramuscular adrenaline administration was performed in 43 cases (87.8%), and this was done within five minutes after the onset in 37 cases (75.5%). Only in 24 cases (49.0%), there were time records of both the onset and adrenaline administration (if performed).
conclusionAnaphylaxis occurred within 30 min after contrast injection in the majority of the cases, but times were widely distributed. Only in 75.5% of cases, appropriate primary treatment was performed, and the importance of keeping exact time records in patients' charts should be re-emphasized.
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.