Iranian Journal of Radiology

Published by: Kowsar

Clinicians’ Control Preferences Regarding Prevention of Contrast Agent Reactions

Ebru Hasbay 1 , * and Ali Haydar Baykan 2
Authors Information
1 Department of Radilogy, Reyhanli State Hospital, Hatay, Turkey
2 Department of Radiology, Adlyaman University Faculty of Medicine, Adiyaman, Turkey
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Radiology: October 2017, 14 (4); e63462
  • Published Online: October 31, 2017
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: December 1, 2016
  • Revised: February 24, 2017
  • Accepted: April 29, 2017
  • DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.63462

To Cite: Hasbay E, Baykan A H. Clinicians’ Control Preferences Regarding Prevention of Contrast Agent Reactions, Iran J Radiol. 2017 ; 14(4):e63462. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.63462.

Copyright © 2017, Iranian Journal of Radiology. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objective
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
  • 1. ACR Manual on Contrast Media Version 10.2. 2016. Available from:
  • 2. Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, Strouse PJ, Jan SC. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i.v. contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1533-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2554. [PubMed: 18029897].
  • 3. Callahan MJ, Poznauskis L, Zurakowski D, Taylor GA. Nonionic iodinated intravenous contrast material-related reactions: incidence in large urban children's hospital--retrospective analysis of data in 12,494 patients. Radiology. 2009;250(3):674-81. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503071577. [PubMed: 19244041].
  • 4. ESUR Guidelines on contrast media Version 9.0. 2016. Available from:
  • 5. Council of E. [Developing a methodology for drawing up guidelines on best medical practices. (Recommendation (2001)13 and explanatory memorandum)]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2002;96 Suppl 3:5-59. [PubMed: 12964585].
  • 6. Butler JM, Hirshberg EL, Hopkins RO, Wilson EL, Orme JF, Beesley SJ, et al. Preliminary Identification of Coping Profiles Relevant to Surrogate Decision Making in the ICU. PLoS One. 2016;11(11). e0166542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166542. [PubMed: 27835704].
  • 7. Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, et al. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2. S12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12. [PubMed: 24625035].
  • 8. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21-43. [PubMed: 9505581].
  • 9. Kandampully J. Service quality to service loyalty: A relationship which goes beyond customer services. Total Qual Manage. 1998;9(6):431-43. doi: 10.1080/0954412988370.
  • 10. Lewis A. Referral physician marketing. J Health Care Mark. 1993;13(4):20-4. [PubMed: 10131730].
  • 11. Walbridge SW, Delene LM. Measuring physician attitudes of service quality. J Health Care Mark. 1993;13(1):6-15. [PubMed: 10126032].
  • 12. Ponzurick TG, France KR, Logar CM. Referring physician satisfaction: toward a better understanding of hospital referrals. J Hosp Mark. 1998;12(2):95-111. doi: 10.1300/J043v12n02_07. [PubMed: 10186254].
  • 13. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CF, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv. 1-88. [PubMed: 9561895].

Featured Image:

Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .
Readers' Comments