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 *

49 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2643140)

  • 1. Results of randomized controlled trials of low-versus high-osmolality contrast media.
    Kinnison ML; Powe NR; Steinberg EP
    Radiology; 1989 Feb; 170(2):381-9. PubMed ID: 2643140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Miscellaneous adverse effects of low-versus high-osmolality contrast media: a study revised.
    Brismar J; Jacobsson BF; Jorulf H
    Radiology; 1991 Apr; 179(1):19-22. PubMed ID: 1826061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of contrast media.
    Powe NR; Kinnison ML; Steinberg EP
    Radiology; 1989 Feb; 170(2):377-80. PubMed ID: 2911662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Radiocontrast-associated renal dysfunction: a comparison of lower-osmolality and conventional high-osmolality contrast media.
    Lautin EM; Freeman NJ; Schoenfeld AH; Bakal CW; Haramati N; Friedman AC; Lautin JL; Braha S; Kadish EG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Jul; 157(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 2048540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Nephrotoxicity of high-osmolality versus low-osmolality contrast media: randomized clinical trial.
    Moore RD; Steinberg EP; Powe NR; Brinker JA; Fishman EK; Graziano S; Gopalan R
    Radiology; 1992 Mar; 182(3):649-55. PubMed ID: 1535876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast material for intravenous use in patients perceived to be at high risk: randomized trial.
    Barrett BJ; Parfrey PS; McDonald JR; Hefferton DM; Reddy ER; McManamon PJ
    Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):105-10. PubMed ID: 1549654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The significance of 'no significant difference'.
    Brismar J; Jacobsson B
    Acta Radiol; 1990 May; 31(3):315-8. PubMed ID: 2201333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pain in peripheral arteriography-a comparison of a low osmolality contrast medium with a conventional compound.
    Tillmann U; Adler R; Fuchs WA
    Br J Radiol; 1979 Feb; 52(614):102-4. PubMed ID: 371733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Trial design and reporting standards for intra-arterial cerebral thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.
    Higashida RT; Furlan AJ; Roberts H; Tomsick T; Connors B; Barr J; Dillon W; Warach S; Broderick J; Tilley B; Sacks D; ;
    Stroke; 2003 Aug; 34(8):e109-37. PubMed ID: 12869717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Liquid gold: low-osmolality contrast media.
    White RI; Halden WJ
    Radiology; 1986 May; 159(2):559-60. PubMed ID: 3515427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contrast-induced nephropathy after intravenous administration: fact or fiction?
    Katzberg RW; Lamba R
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2009 Sep; 47(5):789-800, v. PubMed ID: 19744594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Prospective study of adverse reactions to contrast media administered intravenously--a comparison of low-osmolality and high-osmolality contrast media].
    Higashi S; Takizawa K; Suzuki S; Nagashima J; Tamura S; Ishikawa M; Obuchi M; Katayama M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1988 Nov; 48(11):1364-70. PubMed ID: 3237463
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical tolerance and diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 300 in lower limb angiography.
    Stockx L; Wilms G; Baert AL; Terrier F
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1996; 400():72-4. PubMed ID: 8619357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Acute and late adverse reactions to low-osmolal contrast media.
    Mikkonen R; Kontkanen T; Kivisaari L
    Acta Radiol; 1995 Jan; 36(1):72-6. PubMed ID: 7833173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [The rate of adverse reactions to contrast media after double injections--correlation with the plasma histamine level].
    Tschakert H
    Rontgenpraxis; 1989 Apr; 42(4):107-11. PubMed ID: 2652339
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Elevated risk of anaphylactoid reaction from radiographic contrast media is associated with both beta-blocker exposure and cardiovascular disorders.
    Lang DM; Alpern MB; Visintainer PF; Smith ST
    Arch Intern Med; 1993 Sep; 153(17):2033-40. PubMed ID: 8102844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization.
    Barrett BJ; Parfrey PS; Vavasour HM; O'Dea F; Kent G; Stone E
    N Engl J Med; 1992 Feb; 326(7):431-6. PubMed ID: 1732770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Early hemodynamic cardiovascular reactions to nonionic low-osmolar contrast media in coronary angiography].
    Wink K
    Rontgenblatter; 1988 Sep; 41(9):384-8. PubMed ID: 3175478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.