MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415215431 · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112472

Risk factors associated with immediate hypersensitivity reaction to contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415215431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenyu Huang, Chunlei He, Yahong Chen, Hui Xu, Jin Yao, Lihong Zhao, Xi-Jiao Liu, Hong Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Radiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaResearch and DevelopmentSichuan UniversityDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province
KeywordsRisk factorContrast (vision)Hypersensitivity reactionDelayed hypersensitivityMEDLINEImmunopathologyEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Objective</h3> To determine the risk factors associated with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media (CM-IHR). <h3>Materials and methods</h3> A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science database and the Cochrane Library up to December 2024 to identify studies in which risk factors associated with CM-IHR were explored. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each risk factor were pooled from the selected studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated via the Higgins I<sup>2</sup> test. <h3>Results</h3> From 8,342 citations, seven were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 115,043 patients and 736,203 injections. The methodological quality was rated as high in six studies and moderate in one. Four studies investigated iodinated CM (ICM), while 3 investigated gadolinium-based contrast agent. Female sex (OR 1.46; 95 % CI 1.33–1.59) was identified as a significant risk factor for CM-IHR, and age showed an inverse association with risk (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.98–0.99). Asthma history was not suggested as a significant risk factor (OR 1.12; 95 % CI, 0.95–1.33; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %). For ICM-IHR specifically, outpatient status was associated with higher risk (OR, 3.08; 95 % CI, 1.13–8.44). Notably, pooled analysis of two studies suggested a trend toward increased risk with prior history of hypersensitivity reaction to ICM; however, this association was not statistically significant and was accompanied by high heterogeneity (OR 7.49; 95 % CI, 0.42–135.09, I<sup>2</sup> = 87 %). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that female sex was a significant risk factor for CM-IHR, whereas increasing age was associated with a lower risk. Outpatient status showed a significant association with ICM-IHR. Prior history of hypersensitivity reaction to ICM was not identified as a significant risk factor. Given the small number of available studies and substantial heterogeneity, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of RadiologySame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207