Structured Abstract

Contents

• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Key Informants
• Technical Expert Panel
• Peer Reviewers
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
  • Background
  • Scope of the Review
  • Key Question
• Methods
  • Topic Refinement and Protocol Review
  • Literature Search Strategy
  • Study Selection
  • Data Extraction
  • Quality (Risk of Bias) Assessment of Individual Studies
  • Data Synthesis
  • Minimally Important Difference
  • Strength of the Body of Evidence
  • Applicability
• Results
  • Results of the Literature Search
  • Key Question: What are the comparative benefits and harms of different contrast media in patients receiving imaging studies requiring intravenous or intra-arterial administration?
• Discussion
  • Limitations of the Evidence
  • Limitations of the Review
  • Future Research
  • Conclusions
• References
• Appendix A. Acronyms
• Appendix B. Detailed Search Strategy
• Appendix C. Screening and Data Abstraction Forms
• Appendix D. Excluded Studies
• Appendix E. Evidence Tables
• Appendix F. Study Limitations
• Appendix G. Study Limitation Figures

Suggested citation:

Eng J, Subramaniam RM, Wilson RF, Turban S, Choi MJ, Zhang A, Suarez-Cuervo C, Sherrod C, Hutfless S, Iyoha EE, Bass EB. Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: Comparative Effects of Different Contrast Media. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 155. (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00007-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 15(16)-EHC022-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2015. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00007-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.

This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov