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.
292 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1739017)
41. Contrast-enhanced CT of the liver and spleen: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents. Nelson RC; Chezmar JL; Peterson JE; Bernardino ME AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Nov; 153(5):973-6. PubMed ID: 2801447 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. High dose brain CT with ioxaglate and diatrizoate adverse reactions and effects on urine protein tests. Raininko R; Laivola J; Irjala K Eur J Radiol; 1988 Feb; 8(1):44-6. PubMed ID: 3281838 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Comparison of omnipaque with hypaque in temporomandibular arthrography. Kaplan PA; Lieberman RP; Chu WK AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Dec; 153(6):1225-7. PubMed ID: 2816636 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Iohexol versus meglumine-Ca-metrizoate in cerebral angiography. A randomized double-blind cross-over study. Lovrencić M; Jakovac I; Klanfar Z Acta Radiol Suppl; 1986; 369():521-3. PubMed ID: 2980546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Comparison of meglumine sodium diatrizoate, iopamidol, and iohexol for coronary angiography and ventriculography. Murdock CJ; Davis MJ; Ireland MA; Gibbons FA; Cope GD Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn; 1990 Mar; 19(3):179-83. PubMed ID: 2180577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Hepatic dynamic sequential CT: section enhancement profiles with a bolus of ionic and nonionic contrast agents. Nelson RC; Moyers JH; Chezmar JL; Hoel MJ; Jones EC; Peterson JE; Cork RD; Bernardino ME Radiology; 1991 Feb; 178(2):499-502. PubMed ID: 1987614 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Iobitridol 300 compared to iopromide 300--a double-blind randomized phase-III study of clinical tolerance in total body CT. Hoogewoud HM; Woessmer B Acta Radiol Suppl; 1996; 400():62-4. PubMed ID: 8619354 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Contrast bolus dynamic computed tomography for the measurement of solid organ perfusion. Blomley MJ; Coulden R; Bufkin C; Lipton MJ; Dawson P Invest Radiol; 1993 Nov; 28 Suppl 5():S72-7; discussion S78. PubMed ID: 8282508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. A prospective trial of ionic vs nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects. Wolf GL; Arenson RL; Cross AP AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 May; 152(5):939-44. PubMed ID: 2495706 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Contrast enhancement of the liver and blood. Nonionic versus ionic contrast media in the pig. Jensen LI; Golman K; Nyman U; Dean PB Invest Radiol; 1985 Dec; 20(9):989-94. PubMed ID: 4077451 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Iohexol compared to urografin meglumine in cerebral angiography. A randomized, double blind cross-over study. Ahlgren P Neuroradiology; 1982; 23(4):195-8. PubMed ID: 7121808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Contrast media for CT. An analysis of the early pharmacokinetics. Jensen LI; Dean PB; Nyman U; Golman K Invest Radiol; 1985 Nov; 20(8):867-70. PubMed ID: 4077440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. High- and low-osmolar contrast agents in urography: a comparison of the appearances with respect to pyelotubular opacification and renal length. Whitehouse RW Clin Radiol; 1986 Jul; 37(4):395-8. PubMed ID: 3731706 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]