Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40214732›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yuguo Wei, Xinchao Jiang, Mark Hibberd, Alexis Sampedro, Jeannette Rautenbach

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Yuguo WeiMedical Affairs, GE Healthcare, Bejing, China.
Xinchao JiangMedical Affairs, GE Healthcare, Bejing, China.
Mark HibberdGlobal Medical Services, GE Healthcare, Marlborough, USA.
Alexis SampedroMedical Affairs, GE Healthcare, Madrid, Spain.
Jeannette RautenbachGlobal Medical Affairs, GE Healthcare, Braunschweig, Germany. jeannette.rautenbach@gehealthcare.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-7762-5358

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare acute adverse reactions (AAR) rates among non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), examining administration routes and severity-specific impact on AAR rates. MATERIALS AND

methodsA PubMed and Cochrane Library search identified studies published between January 1989 and March 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies with > 100 adult patients who received intra-arterial or intravenous LOCM (iobitridol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, and ioversol). Duplicate reports and studies with insufficient information were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment followed PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, including random effects, meta-regression, and sub-group analysis.

resultsAfter excluding duplicates and non-compliant studies, 32 peer-reviewed articles of initially 6701 identified studies, were included in the final analysis. The pooled overall AAR rate was 0.73%, with ioversol showing the lowest rate (0.34%). From all studies, pooled rates (random effects model) of moderate and severe AARs were 0.10% and 0.014% (p < 0.01), with the lowest rates for iohexol (0.05% and 0.008%, respectively). The highest overall, moderate, and severe AAR rates were seen with iomeprol (1.38%, 0.27%, and 0.040%, respectively). LOCM type (p < 0.0001), study design (p = 0.0001), and injection route (p = 0.034) significantly influenced the overall AAR rate. In contrast, the study center number (p = 0.698), the country where the study was performed (p = 0.808), and the type of reaction (hypersensitivity vs hypersensitivity plus physiological reactions; p = 0.178) did not.

conclusionAAR rates were low but indicated significant differences between LOCM; iohexol and ioversol demonstrated the overall most favorable safety profiles. KEY POINTS: Question Knowledge about AAR is crucial for patient safety, but comprehensive data on the safety profiles of non-ionic LOCM is lacking. Findings Ioversol showed the lowest overall AAR rate; iohexol demonstrated the lowest moderate/severe AAR. Study design, LOCM type, and injection route influenced AAR rates. Clinical relevance This meta-analysis provides evidence for differences in non-ionic LOCM safety profiles, particularly for moderate and severe AARs. These can guide clinicians in selecting contrast agents, aiming to further reduce risks, and improve patient safety in diagnostic imaging.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansIohexolOsmolar ConcentrationContrast MediaIohexolAdverse reactionContrast mediaHypersensitivityLow-osmolarNon-ionic

Identifiers

PMID40214732
PMCPMC12417258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.