ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
Severe anaphylactic reaction to contrast agent: teams are well prepared but should simulate the situations regularly.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From knowing to acting: closing the emergency gap in contrast-induced anaphylaxis.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAnaphylactic reactions are dramatic and life-threatening. According to international guidelines, the immediate intramuscular administration of adrenaline is the most important first step for acute management. The aim of this study is to determine whether doctors can recognize and treat severe anaphylactic reactions to contrast agents adequately.
methodsIn this study, 95 doctors were interviewed between January and June 2023 in European clinics that are not affiliated with the authors. Ninety-five doctors from radiology, internal medicine, and anaesthesia departments were randomly selected for interviews. A video was prepared simulating a male patient developing a severe anaphylactic reaction during CT after intravenous administration of an iodinated contrast medium. After the video, 95 doctors were interviewed (59 radiologists, 19 internists, and 17 anaesthesiologists). The doctors were asked 3 questions: (1) What is the diagnosis? (2) What is the therapy of choice? (3) Can you demonstrate the correct way to operate the adrenaline autoinjector?
resultsAll 95 doctors made the correct diagnosis (100%). Sixty-three of 95 physicians (66%) were uncertain regarding the appropriate first-line therapy. This was observed across all three medical specialties (internal medicine, anaesthesiology, and radiology) (P = .64). Sixty-five physicians (68%) had difficulties triggering the autoinjection system successfully.
conclusionsAcute anaphylaxis is life-threatening, but there is uncertainty among professional groups about initiating acute management. Refresher training should be considered to ensure timely and appropriate treatment of the condition when it occurs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study highlighted significant gaps in physicians' real-world readiness to manage acute anaphylaxis, despite all doctors correctly diagnosing the condition.
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.