337 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21412090)
21. Oral contrast agents in CT of the abdomen.
Garrett PR; Meshkov SL; Perlmutter GS
Radiology; 1984 Nov; 153(2):545-6. PubMed ID: 6484186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The use of iohexol as oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis.
Horton KM; Fishman EK; Gayler B
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2008; 32(2):207-9. PubMed ID: 18379303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Cost-effectiveness and patient tolerance of low-attenuation oral contrast material: milk versus VoLumen.
Koo CW; Shah-Patel LR; Baer JW; Frager DH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 May; 190(5):1307-13. PubMed ID: 18430848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison of the systemic responses to rapid intravenous injections of ioxilan, iohexol, and diatrizoate in rabbits.
Morris TW; Prentice L; Ventura J
Invest Radiol; 1989 Apr; 24(4):294-7. PubMed ID: 2745009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluation of "Gastromiro" for bowel opacification during computed tomography: comparison with diatrizoate and barium sulphate.
Doyle GJ; O'Donnell SC; McDonald JR; Murthy LN; Keir MJ; Wright AR
Br J Radiol; 1993 Aug; 66(788):681-4. PubMed ID: 7719680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Three-dimensional CT enterography using oral gastrografin in patients with small bowel obstruction: comparison with axial CT images or fluoroscopic findings.
Hong SS; Kim AY; Kwon SB; Kim PN; Lee MG; Ha HK
Abdom Imaging; 2010 Oct; 35(5):556-62. PubMed ID: 19756853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Acceptability of oral iodinated contrast media: a head-to-head comparison of four media.
Pollentine A; Ngan-Soo E; McCoubrie P
Br J Radiol; 2013 May; 86(1025):20120636. PubMed ID: 23564884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of Positive Oral Contrast Agents for Abdominopelvic CT.
Winklhofer S; Lin WC; Wang ZJ; Behr SC; Westphalen AC; Yeh BM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 May; 212(5):1037-1043. PubMed ID: 30835523
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Re: depiction of normal gastrointestinal anatomy with MDCT: comparison of low- and high-attenuation oral contrast media.
Kennish SJ; Tolan DJ
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):551; author reply 551. PubMed ID: 18684579
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Omnipaque and Gastrografin in gastrointestinal follow-through examinations.
Kinnunen J; Ahovuo J; Edgren J; Pietilä J; Laasonen L; Linden H; Tierala E
Rontgenblatter; 1989 May; 42(5):228-31. PubMed ID: 2756308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Oral contrast for abdominal computed tomography in children: the effects on gastric fluid volume.
Mahmoud M; McAuliffe J; Kim HY; Mishra P; Salisbury S; Schnell B; Hirsch P; Arbabi S; Donnelly LF
Anesth Analg; 2010 Nov; 111(5):1252-8. PubMed ID: 20736428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Abdominal and pelvic CT: use of oral metoclopramide to enhance bowel opacification.
Thoeni RF; Filson RG
Radiology; 1988 Nov; 169(2):391-3. PubMed ID: 3174985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Evaluation of low-density neutral oral contrast material in PET/CT for tumor imaging: results of a randomized clinical trial.
Otero HJ; Yap JT; Patak MA; Erturk SM; Israel DA; Johnston CJ; Sakellis C; Rybicki FJ; Van den Abbeele AD; Ros PR
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):326-32. PubMed ID: 19620427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Depiction of normal gastrointestinal anatomy with MDCT: comparison of low- and high-attenuation oral contrast media.
Erturk SM; Mortelé KJ; Oliva MR; Ichikawa T; Silverman SG; Cantisani V; Pagliara E; Ros PR
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Apr; 66(1):84-7. PubMed ID: 17604930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The use of dilute Calogen as a fat density oral contrast medium in upper abdominal computed tomography, compared with the use of water and positive oral contrast media.
Ramsay DW; Markham DH; Morgan B; Rodgers PM; Liddicoat AJ
Clin Radiol; 2001 Aug; 56(8):670-3. PubMed ID: 11467870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. Peripheral blood eosinophilia associated with gastrointestinal administration of iodinated contrast media.
Plavsic BM; Newman AC; Reuther WL; Terry JA; Drnovsek VH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Mar; 180(3):751-3. PubMed ID: 12591690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
