Best evidence statement (BESt) Safe use of iodine-based skin preparation products in the perioperative area among patients with known or stated food allergy to shellfish or fish
Guideline Developer(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
Date Released
Full Text Guideline
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Beaty AD, Lieberman PL, Slavin RG. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: are physicians propagating a myth. Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4. PubMed
Coakley FV, Panicek DM. Iodine allergy: an oyster without a pearl. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2. PubMed
Huang SW. Seafood and iodine: an analysis of a medical myth. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2005 Nov-Dec;26(6):468-9. PubMed
Katelarius CH. 'Iodine allergy' label is misleading. Aust Prescr. 2009;32(5):125-8.
Lieberman P. Ask the expert: shellfish allergy and the use of Betadine. Milwaukee (WI): American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; 2009. Various p.
Schabelman E, Witting M. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: a medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7. PubMed
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).
Implementation of the Guideline
An implementation strategy was not provided.
Audit Criteria/Indicators
Resources
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
- Clarifying misconceptions that patients with a known food allergy to shellfish or fish have a higher risk for allergic reaction when exposed to iodine based medical products as compared to patients with no known food allergy to shellfish or fish
- Increased use of iodine-based medical products prior to surgical procedures in patients with known or stated food allergy to shellfish or fish
Not stated
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Table of Language and Definitions for Recommendation Strength
Language for Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or visa-versa for negative recommendations). |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Qualifying Statements
This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.
Methodology
Searches of Electronic Databases
Search Strategy
- Databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL , Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar
- Search Terms: Iodine sensitivity/allergy, seafood sensitivity/allergy, fish sensitivity/allergy, hypersensitivity, povidone-iodine, betadine, immunology
- Limits and Filters: None
- Search Dates: Default date parameters were used for each database (date parameters not limited).
- Date Last Search Done: June 25, 2012
A total of five articles were found which addressed the clinical question, including one systematic review, two descriptive studies and three expert opinion articles.
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Systematic Review
Not stated
Expert Consensus
Not stated
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Peer Review
This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by two independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.
Identifying Information and Availability
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Safe use of iodine-based skin preparation products in the perioperative area among patients with known or stated food allergy to shellfish or fish. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2012 Nov 28. 5 p.
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
Not stated
Author: Leslie Knepper BSN, CNOR, Registered Nurse III-Liberty Perioperative Services
Support/Consultant: Carolyn Smith MSN, RN, Evidence Based Practice Mentor, Cincinnati Children's-Center for Professional Excellence, Research & EBP; Mary Ellen Meier MSN, RN, CPN, Evidence-Based Practice Mentor-Center for Professional Excellence and Business Integration
Ad Hoc/Content Reviewers: Carrie Romano MSN,RN, CNL, CPN, Education Specialist, Cincinnati Children's Liberty Perioperative Services; Lisa Phipps, BSN,RN, CNOR, CPN, Clinical Manager, Cincinnati Children's Liberty Perioperative Services
Conflict of interest declaration forms are filed with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Evidence-based Decision Making (CCHMC EBDM) group. No financial conflicts of interest were found.
This is the current release of the guideline.
Electronic copies: Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.
The following are available:
- Judging the strength of a recommendation. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Jan. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
- Grading a body of evidence to answer a clinical question. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
- Table of evidence levels. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Feb 29. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site.
Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.
In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document.
None available
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI on January 24, 2013. This summary was updated by ECRI Institute on March 6, 2014 following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory on Over-the-Counter Topical Antiseptic Products.
This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:
Copies of this Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of the BESt include the following:
- Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization's process for developing and implementing evidence based care
- Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization's website
- The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents
- Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care
Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked by the organization is appreciated.
Scope
- Conditions requiring skin preparation prior to a surgical procedure
- Food allergy to shellfish or fish
Management
Prevention
Allergy and Immunology
Family Practice
Pediatrics
Surgery
Advanced Practice Nurses
Nurses
Physicians
To evaluate, among patients with a known or stated food allergy to shellfish or fish, if using iodine-based products prior to a surgical procedure increases the risk for experiencing an allergic reaction
Patients who require skin preparation prior to a surgical procedure and have a known or stated food allergy to shellfish or fish
Use of iodine-based skin preparation products prior to surgical procedures
Risk for experiencing an allergic reaction
Recommendations
The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1aâ5b) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.
It is recommended that all patients receive skin preparation products using iodine-based medical products prior to surgical procedures, as appropriate (Schabelman & Witting, 2010 [1b]; Beaty, Lieberman, & Slavin, 2008 [4a]; Coakley & Panicek, 1997 [5a]; Katelarius, 2009 [5a]; Lieberman, 2012 [5a]).
Note: Patients with known or stated food allergy to shellfish or fish may not have a higher risk of experiencing an allergic reaction to iodine-based products (Schabelman & Witting, 2010 [1b]; Beaty, Lieberman, & Slavin, 2008 [4a]; Huang, 2005 [4a]; Coakley & Panicek, 1997 [5a]; Katelarius, 2009 [5a]; Lieberman, 2012 [5a]).
Definitions:
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Table of Language and Definitions for Recommendation Strength
Language for Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or visa-versa for negative recommendations). |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
None provided
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
Staying Healthy
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse⢠(NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.