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 *

292 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1739017)

  • 1. Comparison of iohexol 300 and diatrizoate meglumine 60 for body CT: image quality, adverse reactions, and aborted/repeated examinations.
    Bernardino ME; Fishman EK; Jeffrey RB; Brown PC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Mar; 158(3):665-7. PubMed ID: 1739017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Prospective randomized trial of iohexol 350 versus meglumine sodium diatrizoate as an oral contrast agent for abdominopelvic computed tomography.
    Peterson CM; Lin M; Pilgram T; Heiken JP
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2011; 35(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21412090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of intravenous contrast agents for CT studies in children.
    Cohen MD; Herman E; Herron D; White SJ; Smith JA
    Acta Radiol; 1992 Nov; 33(6):592-5. PubMed ID: 1449887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital subtraction angiography. Comparison of meglumine-Na diatrizoate with iohexol.
    Sackett JF; Bergsjordet B; Seeger JF; Cacayorin ED
    Invest Radiol; 1985; 20(1 Suppl):S58-61. PubMed ID: 2579044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of patient reactions and diagnostic quality for hysterosalpingography using ionic and nonionic contrast media.
    Chen MY; Zagoria RJ; Fayez JA; Ott DJ; Van Swearingen FL
    Acad Radiol; 1995 Feb; 2(2):123-7. PubMed ID: 9419535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Intravenous digital subtraction angiography with iohexol (Omnipaque) and sodium meglumin diatrizoate (Urografin).
    Karle A; Fries J; Laulund S; Andrew E
    Diagn Imaging Clin Med; 1986; 55(6):352-9. PubMed ID: 3545629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Pretreatment of patients requiring oral contrast abdominal computed tomography with antiemetics: a randomized controlled trial of efficacy.
    Garra G; Singer AJ; Bamber D; Chohan J; Troxell R; Thode HC
    Ann Emerg Med; 2009 Apr; 53(4):528-33. PubMed ID: 18640743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Adverse reactions to contrast media: factors that determine the cost of treatment.
    Powe NR; Moore RD; Steinberg EP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Nov; 161(5):1089-95. PubMed ID: 8273616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The use of iohexol in pediatric urography: a comparative study with meglumine diatrizoate.
    Bani E; Federighi F; Ghio R; Marchitiello M; Galigani P; Palla R
    Int J Pediatr Nephrol; 1985; 6(4):271-4. PubMed ID: 4093245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Spiral CT with ionic and nonionic contrast material: evaluation of patient motion and scan quality.
    Stockberger SM; Hicklin JA; Liang Y; Wass JL; Ambrosius WT
    Radiology; 1998 Mar; 206(3):631-6. PubMed ID: 9494478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of iohexol and diatrizoate-meglumine in children undergoing cardiac catheterization.
    Pelech AN; Allard SM; Hurd RT; Giddins NG; Collins GF
    Invest Radiol; 1991 Jul; 26(7):665-70. PubMed ID: 1885274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Urography with non-ionic contrast media: I. Diagnostic quality and tolerance of iohexol in comparison with meglumine amidotrizoate.
    Taenzer V; Heep H; Clauss W
    Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen Nuklearmed Erganzungsbd; 1983; 118():148-52. PubMed ID: 6139070
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of iohexol and meglumine-Na diatrizoate in cerebral angiography.
    Kido DK; Morris TW; Ekholm S; Plassche W; Erickson JL
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1983; 366():142-6. PubMed ID: 6591738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cost-effective use of low-osmolality contrast media for CT of the liver: evaluation of liver enhancement provided by various doses of iohexol.
    Bree RL; Parisky YR; Bernardino ME; Costello P; Leder R; Brown PC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Sep; 163(3):579-83. PubMed ID: 8079849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Iohexol for excretory urography: a comparative study.
    Winfield AC; Dray RJ; Kirchner FK; Muhletaler CA; Price RR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1983 Sep; 141(3):571-3. PubMed ID: 6349311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of Telebrix Gastro and Gastrografin in abdominal computed tomography.
    van Waes PF; Feldberg MA; Barth P
    Eur J Radiol; 1989 Aug; 9(3):179-81. PubMed ID: 2806274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Oral contrast media for body CT: Comparison of diatrizoate sodium and iohexol for patient acceptance and bowel opacification.
    McNamara MM; Lockhart ME; Fineberg NS; Berland LL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Nov; 195(5):1137-41. PubMed ID: 20966319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Multicenter trial of ionic versus nonionic contrast media for cardiac angiography. The Iohexol Cooperative Study.
    Hill JA; Winniford M; Cohen MB; Van Fossen DB; Murphy MJ; Halpern EF; Ludbrook PA; Wexler L; Rudnick MR; Goldfarb S
    Am J Cardiol; 1993 Oct; 72(11):770-5. PubMed ID: 8213508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Renal and hepatic tolerance of nonionic and ionic contrast media in intravenous digital subtraction angiography.
    Langer M; Junge W; Keysser R; Hasford J; Jänicke UA
    Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen Nuklearmed Erganzungsbd; 1989; 128():95-100. PubMed ID: 2568817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital subtraction angiography. Comparison of meglumine-Na diatrizoate with iohexol.
    Sackett JF; Bergsjordet B; Seeger JF; Kieffer SA
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1983; 366():81-4. PubMed ID: 6382939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.