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 *

86 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2492446)

  • 21. High and low osmolar contrast media: who pays?
    Göthlin JH
    Eur J Radiol; 1988 May; 8(2):67-8. PubMed ID: 3383859
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Contrast medium-induced adverse reactions: economic outcome.
    Powe NR; Steinberg EP; Erickson JE; Moore RD; Smith CR; White RI; Brinker JA; Fishman EK; Zinreich SJ; Kinnison ML
    Radiology; 1988 Oct; 169(1):163-8. PubMed ID: 3420254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Use of low-osmolality contrast media in a price-sensitive environment.
    Steinberg EP; Anderson GF; Powe NR; Sakin JW; Kinnison ML; Neuman P; White RI
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Aug; 151(2):271-4. PubMed ID: 3260719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cost effectiveness: radiologic services.
    Lucas SJ
    Ohio State Med J; 1979 May; 75(5):290-3. PubMed ID: 111190
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Economic analysis of a comprehensive quality assurance program.
    Nelson RE; Barnes GT; Witten DM
    Radiol Technol; 1977; 49(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 905557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Nonionic contrast media: a bargain for some, a burden for many.
    Goel V; Deber RB; Detsky AS
    CMAJ; 1990 Sep; 143(6):480-1. PubMed ID: 2119872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Ionic versus nonionic contrast media: a burden or a bargain?
    Gafni A; Zylak CJ
    CMAJ; 1990 Sep; 143(6):475-8. PubMed ID: 2119871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. The introduction of low-osmolar contrast agents in radiology. Medical, economic, legal, and public policy issues.
    Jacobson PD; Rosenquist CJ
    JAMA; 1988 Sep; 260(11):1586-92. PubMed ID: 3137372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Ionic versus nonionic contrast media: a burden or a bargain?
    Kalant N
    CMAJ; 1991 Jan; 144(2):123-4, 128. PubMed ID: 1898868
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Cost containment in the use of low-osmolar contrast agents: effect of guidelines, monitoring, and feedback mechanisms.
    Levin DC; Gardiner GA; Karasick S; Shaber GS; Wechsler RJ; McArdle GH; Lockard CD; Harford RJ
    Radiology; 1993 Dec; 189(3):753-7. PubMed ID: 8234700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The adoption of low-osmolar contrast agents in the United States: historical analysis of health policy and clinical practice.
    Wilmot A; Mehta N; Jha S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Nov; 199(5):1049-53. PubMed ID: 23096178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The conventional versus the new radiological contrast media. Cost-benefit analysis and medicolegal implications.
    van Niekerk JP; Strauss SA
    S Afr Med J; 1986 Dec; 70(13):799-801. PubMed ID: 3099400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Contrast use: waste not--want not.
    Coop FW; Hobbs BB
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 1989 Aug; 40(4):201-2. PubMed ID: 2766016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth?
    Appel LJ; Steinberg EP; Powe NR; Anderson GF; Dwyer SA; Faden RR
    Med Care; 1990 Apr; 28(4):324-37. PubMed ID: 2108285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. To whom should we give the safer contrast media?
    Black WC
    Radiology; 1987 Jun; 163(3):831-2. PubMed ID: 3575744
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Economic evaluation of pioglitazone hydrochloride in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada.
    Coyle D; Palmer AJ; Tam R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2002; 20 Suppl 1():31-42. PubMed ID: 12036382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Cost effectiveness of nasal calcitonin in postmenopausal women: use of Cochrane Collaboration methods for meta-analysis within economic evaluation.
    Coyle D; Cranney A; Lee KM; Welch V; Tugwell P
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2001; 19(5 Pt 2):565-75. PubMed ID: 11465301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Benchmarking the vital risk of waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery in Ontario.
    Naylor CD; Szalai JP; Katic M
    CMAJ; 2000 Mar; 162(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 10750462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.