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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8203344)

  • 1. Successful use of education and cost-based feedback strategies to reduce physician utilization of low-osmolality contrast agents in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
    Ziskind AA; Portelli J; Rodriguez S; Stafford JL; Herzog WR; Knox JG; Vogel RA
    Am J Cardiol; 1994 Jun; 73(16):1219-21. PubMed ID: 8203344
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are iso-osmolar, as compared to low-osmolar, contrast media cost-effective in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization? An economic analysis.
    Hiremath S; Akbari A; Wells GA; Chow BJW
    Int Urol Nephrol; 2018 Aug; 50(8):1477-1482. PubMed ID: 29687326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Should nonionic radiographic contrast media be given to all patients?
    Parfrey PS; Cramer BC; McManamon PJ
    CMAJ; 1988 Mar; 138(6):497-500. PubMed ID: 3278782
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of low- with high-osmolality contrast agents in cardiac angiography. Identification of criteria for selective use.
    Matthai WH; Kussmaul WG; Krol J; Goin JE; Schwartz JS; Hirshfeld JW
    Circulation; 1994 Jan; 89(1):291-301. PubMed ID: 8281660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cost-effectiveness of iso- versus low-osmolality contrast media in outpatients with high risk of contrast medium-induced nephropathy.
    Chicaíza-Becerra LA; García-Molina M; Gamboa Ó
    Biomedica; 2012 Jun; 32(2):182-8. PubMed ID: 23242291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. From COURT to HOMBURG: in search of the optimal contrast agent.
    Batchelor WB
    Eur Heart J; 2001 Nov; 22(21):2026-9. PubMed ID: 11603912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals?
    Mason J; Freemantle N; Nazareth I; Eccles M; Haines A; Drummond M
    JAMA; 2001 Dec; 286(23):2988-92. PubMed ID: 11743840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Radiographic contrast waste in cardiac catheterization laboratories.
    Portelli J; Ziskind AA
    Am J Cardiol; 1994 Oct; 74(7):739-41. PubMed ID: 7942540
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The responsibility of contrast media companies in the costs and benefits of radiology: giving the radiologist a real choice.
    Idée AS; Bonnemain B; Briand YP
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Apr; 3 Suppl 1():S157-9. PubMed ID: 8796550
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Physician profiling in the catheterization laboratory: a worthwhile strategy or a path to futility?
    Vaitkus PT
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2001 Nov; 38(5):1424-6. PubMed ID: 11691518
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents for i.v. urography and CT: safety and effect on cost.
    Hunter TB; Dye J; Duval JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Oct; 163(4):965-8. PubMed ID: 8092044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Thrombosis following phlebography with high-osmolar and low-osmolar contrast media.
    Eliasen B; Hørup A; Jensen AR
    Eur J Radiol; 1983 May; 3(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 6347689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Patient tolerance to sequential administration of Urografin and Hexabrix.
    Partridge JB
    Br J Radiol; 1985 Mar; 58(687):272. PubMed ID: 4063672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Safety and cost effectiveness of high-osmolality as compared with low-osmolality contrast material in patients undergoing cardiac angiography.
    Steinberg EP; Moore RD; Powe NR; Gopalan R; Davidoff AJ; Litt M; Graziano S; Brinker JA
    N Engl J Med; 1992 Feb; 326(7):425-30. PubMed ID: 1732769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative tolerability of contrast media used for coronary interventions.
    Esplugas E; Cequier A; Gomez-Hospital JA; Del Blanco BG; Jara F
    Drug Saf; 2002; 25(15):1079-98. PubMed ID: 12452733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Low osmolality contrast media in peripheral arteriography--clinical comparison of ioxaglate, iopamidol, iohexol and diatrizoate].
    Tajima H
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1985 Nov; 45(11):1407-20. PubMed ID: 4094879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cost-effectiveness of iodixanol in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.
    Aspelin P; Aubry P; Fransson SG; Strasser R; Willenbrock R; Lundkvist J
    Am Heart J; 2005 Feb; 149(2):298-303. PubMed ID: 15846268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Contrast media in paediatric radiology.
    Cremin BJ; Rhodes AH
    Br J Radiol; 1983 Oct; 56(670):779. PubMed ID: 6616148
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury in renal transplant recipients after cardiac catheterization.
    Agrawal V; Swami A; Kosuri R; Alsabbagh M; Agarwal M; Samarapungavan D; Rocher LL; McCullough PA
    Clin Nephrol; 2009 Jun; 71(6):687-96. PubMed ID: 19473638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.