These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1598930)

  • 1. Decision analysis to assess cost-effectiveness of low-osmolality contrast medium for intravenous urography.
    Calvo MV; Pilar del Val M; Mar Alvarez M; Domínguez-Gil A
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1992 Mar; 49(3):577-84. PubMed ID: 1598930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Low osmolar (non-ionic) contrast media versus high osmolar (ionic) contrast media in intravenous urography and enhanced computerized tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Wangsuphachart S
    Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health; 1991 Dec; 22(4):664-76. PubMed ID: 1820658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Safety and cost effectiveness of high-osmolality as compared with low-osmolality contrast material in patients undergoing cardiac angiography.
    Steinberg EP; Moore RD; Powe NR; Gopalan R; Davidoff AJ; Litt M; Graziano S; Brinker JA
    N Engl J Med; 1992 Feb; 326(7):425-30. PubMed ID: 1732769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The safety and cost-effectiveness of low osmolar contrast media. Can economic analysis determine the real worth of a new technology?
    Henry DA; Evans DB; Robertson J
    Med J Aust; 1991 Jun; 154(11):766-72. PubMed ID: 1828529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization.
    Barrett BJ; Parfrey PS; Vavasour HM; O'Dea F; Kent G; Stone E
    N Engl J Med; 1992 Feb; 326(7):431-6. PubMed ID: 1732770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents for i.v. urography and CT: safety and effect on cost.
    Hunter TB; Dye J; Duval JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Oct; 163(4):965-8. PubMed ID: 8092044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The cost-effectiveness of replacing high-osmolality with low-osmolality contrast media.
    Caro JJ; Trindade E; McGregor M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Oct; 159(4):869-74. PubMed ID: 1529856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cost-effectiveness of unenhanced MR imaging vs contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen or pelvis.
    Lessler DS; Sullivan SD; Stergachis A
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jul; 163(1):5-9. PubMed ID: 8010246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of intravascular low-osmolality contrast agents.
    Swanson DP; Thrall JH; Shetty PC
    Clin Pharm; 1986 Nov; 5(11):877-91. PubMed ID: 3780159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Selection of contrast media: current status of understanding].
    Briguori C
    G Ital Cardiol (Rome); 2009 Feb; 10(2):79-87. PubMed ID: 19348144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Selective use of low osmolality contrast agents: cost and benefits.
    Ohnesorgen EG; Yoshino MT
    Radiol Technol; 1988; 59(6):499-502. PubMed ID: 3136507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast material for intravenous use in patients perceived to be at high risk: randomized trial.
    Barrett BJ; Parfrey PS; McDonald JR; Hefferton DM; Reddy ER; McManamon PJ
    Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):105-10. PubMed ID: 1549654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cost-effectiveness of iso- versus low-osmolality contrast media in outpatients with high risk of contrast medium-induced nephropathy.
    Chicaíza-Becerra LA; García-Molina M; Gamboa Ó
    Biomedica; 2012 Jun; 32(2):182-8. PubMed ID: 23242291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A clinical decision and economic analysis model of cancer pain management.
    Abernethy AP; Samsa GP; Matchar DB
    Am J Manag Care; 2003 Oct; 9(10):651-64. PubMed ID: 14572175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Intravenous contrast media: use and associated mortality.
    Cashman JD; McCredie J; Henry DA
    Med J Aust; 1991 Nov; 155(9):618-23. PubMed ID: 1943961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant radiotherapy in intermediate risk endometrial cancer.
    Rankins NC; Secord AA; Jewell E; Havrilesky LJ; Soper JT; Myers E
    Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Aug; 106(2):388-93. PubMed ID: 17509672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Low-osmolality versus high-osmolality contrast material.
    Korn WT; Bettmann MA
    Curr Opin Radiol; 1992 Apr; 4(2):9-15. PubMed ID: 1554592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The risks of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low-osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis.
    Caro JJ; Trindade E; McGregor M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Apr; 156(4):825-32. PubMed ID: 1825900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.