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.
144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36136887)
1. A Comparison of the Sensitivity of Contrast-Specific Imaging Modes on Clinical and Preclinical Ultrasound Scanners. Moran CM; Arthur C; Quaia E Tomography; 2022 Sep; 8(5):2285-2297. PubMed ID: 36136887 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Characteristics and Echogenicity of Clinical Ultrasound Contrast Agents: An In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison Study. Hyvelin JM; Gaud E; Costa M; Helbert A; Bussat P; Bettinger T; Frinking P J Ultrasound Med; 2017 May; 36(5):941-953. PubMed ID: 28240842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Investigation Into the Subharmonic Response of Three Contrast Agents in Static and Dynamic Flow Environments Using a Commercially Available Diagnostic Ultrasound Scanner. Mayer H; Kim GW; Machado P; Eisenbrey JR; Vu T; Wallace K; Forsberg F Ultrasound Med Biol; 2024 Nov; 50(11):1731-1738. PubMed ID: 39217026 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vitro acoustic characterization of three phospholipid ultrasound contrast agents from 12 to 43 MHz. Sun C; Sboros V; Butler MB; Moran CM Ultrasound Med Biol; 2014 Mar; 40(3):541-50. PubMed ID: 24361219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Real-time excitation-enhanced ultrasound contrast imaging. Forsberg F; Shi WT; Knauer MK; Hall AL; Vecchio C; Bernardi R Ultrason Imaging; 2005 Apr; 27(2):65-74. PubMed ID: 16231836 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. In vitro evaluation of the impact of ultrasound scanner settings and contrast bolus volume on time-intensity curves. Gauthier TP; Chebil M; Peronneau P; Lassau N Ultrasonics; 2012 Jan; 52(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 21722933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Simultaneous grayscale and subharmonic ultrasound imaging on a modified commercial scanner. Eisenbrey JR; Dave JK; Halldorsdottir VG; Merton DA; Machado P; Liu JB; Miller C; Gonzalez JM; Park S; Dianis S; Chalek CL; Thomenius KE; Brown DB; Navarro V; Forsberg F Ultrasonics; 2011 Dec; 51(8):890-7. PubMed ID: 21621239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Surface Charge Measurement of SonoVue, Definity and Optison: A Comparison of Laser Doppler Electrophoresis and Micro-Electrophoresis. Ja'afar F; Leow CH; Garbin V; Sennoga CA; Tang MX; Seddon JM Ultrasound Med Biol; 2015 Nov; 41(11):2990-3000. PubMed ID: 26318559 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Investigation of the relationship of nonlinear backscattered ultrasound intensity with microbubble concentration at low MI. Lampaskis M; Averkiou M Ultrasound Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 36(2):306-12. PubMed ID: 20045592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. In vitro acoustic characterisation of four intravenous ultrasonic contrast agents at 30 MHz. Moran CM; Watson RJ; Fox KA; McDicken WN Ultrasound Med Biol; 2002 Jun; 28(6):785-91. PubMed ID: 12113791 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue® (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Westwood M; Joore M; Grutters J; Redekop K; Armstrong N; Lee K; Gloy V; Raatz H; Misso K; Severens J; Kleijnen J Health Technol Assess; 2013 Apr; 17(16):1-243. PubMed ID: 23611316 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Perfusion quantification using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the impact of dynamic range and gain on time-intensity curves. Gauthier TP; Averkiou MA; Leen EL Ultrasonics; 2011 Jan; 51(1):102-6. PubMed ID: 20643467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. On the usefulness of the mechanical index displayed on clinical ultrasound scanners for predicting contrast microbubble destruction. Forsberg F; Shi WT; Merritt CR; Dai Q; Solcova M; Goldberg BB J Ultrasound Med; 2005 Apr; 24(4):443-50. PubMed ID: 15784762 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of Needle and Catheter Size on Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents. Eisenbrey JR; Daecher A; Kramer MR; Forsberg F J Ultrasound Med; 2015 Nov; 34(11):1961-8. PubMed ID: 26384606 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimisation of the transmit beam parameters for generation of subharmonic signals in native and altered populations of a commercial microbubble contrast agent SonoVue®. Ivory AM; Meaney JF; Fagan AJ; Browne JE Phys Med; 2020 Feb; 70():176-183. PubMed ID: 32036334 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Synthesis of laboratory Ultrasound Contrast Agents. Park J; Park D; Shin U; Moon S; Kim C; Kim HS; Park H; Choi K; Jung B; Oh J; Seo J Molecules; 2013 Oct; 18(10):13078-95. PubMed ID: 24152677 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A Milestone: Approval of CEUS for Diagnostic Liver Imaging in Adults and Children in the USA. Seitz K; Strobel D Ultraschall Med; 2016 Jun; 37(3):229-32. PubMed ID: 27276056 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dual-high-frequency ultrasound excitation on microbubble destruction volume. Shen CC; Su SY; Cheng CH; Yeh CK Ultrasonics; 2010 Jun; 50(7):698-703. PubMed ID: 20193957 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Far-wall pseudoenhancement during contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the carotid arteries: clinical description and in vitro reproduction. ten Kate GL; Renaud GG; Akkus Z; van den Oord SC; ten Cate FJ; Shamdasani V; Entrekin RR; Sijbrands EJ; de Jong N; Bosch JG; Schinkel AF; van der Steen AF Ultrasound Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 38(4):593-600. PubMed ID: 22341054 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Gene transfer with microbubble ultrasound and plasmid DNA into skeletal muscle of mice: comparison between commercially available microbubble contrast agents. Wang X; Liang HD; Dong B; Lu QL; Blomley MJ Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):224-9. PubMed ID: 16081853 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]