Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908792›Full record

ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2026

Characterization and diagnostic evaluation of hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media: A retrospective analysis.

Gabija Brusokienė, Kotryna Linauskienė, Kęstutis Černiauskas, Linas Griguola, Justina Rudytė, Rūta Vėbrienė, Anželika Chomičienė, Laura Malinauskienė

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Gabija BrusokienėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Kotryna LinauskienėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Kęstutis ČerniauskasVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Linas GriguolaVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Justina RudytėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Rūta VėbrienėVilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, Pulmonology and Allergology Department, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Anželika ChomičienėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Laura MalinauskienėVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Clinic of Chest Diseases, Immunology and Allergology, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) pose a growing clinical challenge, especially for patients requiring imaging. Differentiation of immune-mediated hypersensitivity from non-immune adverse reactions is essential to avoid unnecessary ICM avoidance and ensure safe diagnostic imaging procedures. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 222 patients assessed for suspected ICM hypersensitivity at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics from 2017 to 2024. All patients underwent skin prick and intradermal testing. Selected individuals received intravenous provocation testing. Clinical characteristics, symptom profiles, and outcomes were assessed. Results: Sensitization to ICM was confirmed in 16.67% of patients, primarily via intradermal and provocation testing. Urticaria (OR = 3.93) and anaphylaxis (OR = 4.17) were significantly associated with confirmed sensitization, while isolated non-cutaneous symptoms and late-onset angioedema were not. Higher sensitization rates were observed in patients with oncologic (29.63%) and cardiovascular (20.69%) conditions, and renal pathology showed the lowest rate (2.94%). Among non-sensitized patients, 75 underwent ICM imaging without adverse reactions and were safely delabeled. Most sensitized individuals tolerated alternative ICM agents. Conclusions: A tiered allergological approach using skin and provocation testing supports accurate diagnosis and risk-stratified imaging strategies, including safer alternative ICM selection and selective delabeling. Findings support early referral, personalized contrast selection, and delabeling strategies in high-risk populations.

Indexed as

Contrast mediaDrug hypersensitivityDrug provocation testRisk assessmentSkin tests

Identifiers

PMID41908792
PMCPMC13019071

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.