117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10187443)
1. Radiologists dither over use of nonionic contrast.
Tilke B
Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1998 Feb; 20(2):31-3. PubMed ID: 10187443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Medical and economic considerations in using a new contrast medium.
Fischer HW; Spataro RF; Rosenberg PM
Arch Intern Med; 1986 Sep; 146(9):1717-21. PubMed ID: 3092757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Survey of contrast media use in southeastern U.S. hospitals.
Utter DP
Radiol Technol; 1997; 68(5):386-90. PubMed ID: 9170181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Costs and performance in roentgen diagnosis--conventional technique versus digital technique].
Brandt GA; Homburg M; Cimanowski N; Ohmen E
Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Nov; 7(6):344-50. PubMed ID: 9467031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Saving intravenously administered contrast media in CT diagnosis by using multi-phase pumps].
Loose R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Mar; 7(2):103. PubMed ID: 9172661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The economics of computed tomography: comparison with other health care costs.
Evens RG
Radiology; 1980 Aug; 136(2):509-10. PubMed ID: 6773103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. New intravascular contrast material.
Thompson WM
Arch Intern Med; 1986 Sep; 146(9):1688. PubMed ID: 3092756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. A case for nonionic contrast media--despite the high cost.
Lieberman EB; Bashore TM
J Crit Illn; 1992 Dec; 7(12):1853-4, 1860. PubMed ID: 10148097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of intravenous urography (IVU) and unenhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for initial investigation of suspected acute ureterolithiasis.
Eikefjord E; Askildsen JE; Rørvik J
Acta Radiol; 2008 Mar; 49(2):222-9. PubMed ID: 18300151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost reduction in abdominal CT by weight-adjusted dose.
Arana E; Martí-Bonmatí L; Tobarra E; Sierra C
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jun; 70(3):507-11. PubMed ID: 18337042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Selective use of radiographic low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s.
Ellis JH; Cohan RH; Sonnad SS; Cohan NS
Radiology; 1996 Aug; 200(2):297-311. PubMed ID: 8685315
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. CAT scanners and cost containment.
Alexander LL; Alexander GA
Urban Health; 1978; 7(6):10, 21. PubMed ID: 10308714
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Patient choice and nonionic contrast media.
Hopper KD; Matthews YL
Invest Radiol; 1993 Apr; 28(4):303-7. PubMed ID: 8478170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. X-ray tubes. Shedding light on your next purchase.
Health Devices; 2000 Dec; 29(12):461-71. PubMed ID: 11190783
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Time to abandon nonionic contrast.
Conlon PJ; Schwab SJ
J Am Soc Nephrol; 1994 Aug; 5(2):123-4. PubMed ID: 7993991
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. CT decision: to buy.
Mosher CL
Trustee; 1977 Feb; 30(2):24. PubMed ID: 10305786
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. CT scanners: do benefits outweigh question of costs?
Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1978 Mar; 11(2):16-7. PubMed ID: 10306186
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Applying cost-effectiveness analysis. The inside story.
Eddy DM
JAMA; 1992 Nov; 268(18):2575-82. PubMed ID: 1404827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The adoption of low-osmolar contrast agents in the United States: historical analysis of health policy and clinical practice.
Wilmot A; Mehta N; Jha S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Nov; 199(5):1049-53. PubMed ID: 23096178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. CT: considerations for safety, efficiency and cost containment.
Albertina MJ
Radiol Manage; 2002; 24(5):10-2. PubMed ID: 12422656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
