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.
2. [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]
3. High-osmolality and low-osmolality contrast agents. Rudoff J; Phillips L N Engl J Med; 1992 Jul; 327(3):203-4. PubMed ID: 1608420 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. High-osmolality and low-osmolality contrast agents. Paulin S N Engl J Med; 1992 Jul; 327(3):202-3; author reply 204-5. PubMed ID: 1608418 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. High-osmolality and low-osmolality contrast agents. Gertz EW N Engl J Med; 1992 Jul; 327(3):203; author reply 204-5. PubMed ID: 1608419 [No 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. The choice of contrast agents in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Morton BC Can J Cardiol; 1989; 5(8):379-81. PubMed ID: 2605547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An economic analysis of strategies for the use of contrast media for diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Barrett BJ; Parfrey PS; Foley RN; Detsky AS Med Decis Making; 1994; 14(4):325-35. PubMed ID: 7808208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Universal use of low-osmolality contrast media for the 1990s. Radensky PW; Cahill NE Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):310-1; discussion 312-5. PubMed ID: 9114079 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Nephrotoxicity of low osmolality contrast media versus high osmolality media. Steinberg EP; Moore RD; Brinker JA; Fishman EK; Powe NR; Graziano SL; Gopalan R Invest Radiol; 1991 Nov; 26 Suppl 1():S86; discussion S88-91. PubMed ID: 1808157 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The safety and cost-effectiveness of low osmolar contrast media. Benness GT Med J Aust; 1991 Nov; 155(9):646-8. PubMed ID: 1943970 [No 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. Saving time, saving money: a time and motion study with contrast management systems. Lehmann C; Hotaling M J Invasive Cardiol; 2005 Feb; 17(2):118-21; quiz 122. PubMed ID: 15687541 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]