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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8282506)

  • 1. Is the safety of contrast agents an issue in body computed tomography?
    Bernardino ME
    Invest Radiol; 1993 Nov; 28 Suppl 5():S68-70; discussion S71. PubMed ID: 8282506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of iohexol 300 and diatrizoate meglumine 60 for body CT: image quality, adverse reactions, and aborted/repeated examinations.
    Bernardino ME; Fishman EK; Jeffrey RB; Brown PC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Mar; 158(3):665-7. PubMed ID: 1739017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The comparative effects of ionic versus nonionic agents in cardiac catheterization.
    Benotti JR
    Invest Radiol; 1988 Nov; 23 Suppl 2():S366-73. PubMed ID: 3058641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prospective randomized trial of iohexol 350 versus meglumine sodium diatrizoate as an oral contrast agent for abdominopelvic computed tomography.
    Peterson CM; Lin M; Pilgram T; Heiken JP
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2011; 35(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21412090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Multicenter trial of ionic versus nonionic contrast media for cardiac angiography. The Iohexol Cooperative Study.
    Hill JA; Winniford M; Cohen MB; Van Fossen DB; Murphy MJ; Halpern EF; Ludbrook PA; Wexler L; Rudnick MR; Goldfarb S
    Am J Cardiol; 1993 Oct; 72(11):770-5. PubMed ID: 8213508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A prospective trial of ionic vs nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects.
    Wolf GL; Arenson RL; Cross AP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 May; 152(5):939-44. PubMed ID: 2495706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of patient reactions and diagnostic quality for hysterosalpingography using ionic and nonionic contrast media.
    Chen MY; Zagoria RJ; Fayez JA; Ott DJ; Van Swearingen FL
    Acad Radiol; 1995 Feb; 2(2):123-7. PubMed ID: 9419535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Anticoagulant effects of nonionic versus ionic contrast media in angiography syringes.
    Grabowski EF; Kaplan KL; Halpern EF
    Invest Radiol; 1991 May; 26(5):417-21. PubMed ID: 2055738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparison of intravenous contrast agents for CT studies in children.
    Cohen MD; Herman E; Herron D; White SJ; Smith JA
    Acta Radiol; 1992 Nov; 33(6):592-5. PubMed ID: 1449887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of the rates of adverse drug reactions. Ionic contrast agents, ionic agents combined with steroids, and nonionic agents.
    Wolf GL; Mishkin MM; Roux SG; Halpern EF; Gottlieb J; Zimmerman J; Gillen J; Thellman C
    Invest Radiol; 1991 May; 26(5):404-10. PubMed ID: 2055736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Contrast media in venous digital angiography: ionic or non-ionic?].
    Stacul F; Magnaldi S; Pozzi-Mucelli R; Muner G; Dalla Palma L
    Radiol Med; 1986 Nov; 72(11):815-22. PubMed ID: 3786845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computed body tomography with a new nonionic contrast agent. Comparison of ioversol with sodium/meglumine diatrizoate.
    McClennan BL; Heiken JP; Lee JK; James MA
    Invest Radiol; 1989 Jun; 24 Suppl 1():S35-8. PubMed ID: 2687193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Local reactions after injection of iodinated contrast material: detection, management, and outcome.
    Cohan RH; Bullard MA; Ellis JH; Jan SC; Francis IR; Garner WL; Dunnick NR
    Acad Radiol; 1997 Nov; 4(11):711-8. PubMed ID: 9365749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A retrospective survey of delayed adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media.
    Yamaguchi K; Takanashi I; Kanauchi T; Hoshi T; Kubota H
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1992 Nov; 52(11):1565-70. PubMed ID: 1465338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The clotting issue: etiologic factors in thromboembolism. II. Clinical considerations.
    Dawson P; Cousins C; Bradshaw A
    Invest Radiol; 1993 Nov; 28 Suppl 5():S31-6; discussion S37-8. PubMed ID: 8282500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Diagnostic efficacy of excretory urography with low-dose, nonionic contrast media.
    Gavant ML; Ellis JV; Klesges LM
    Radiology; 1992 Mar; 182(3):657-60. PubMed ID: 1535877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of ionic and nonionic contrast media on cardiohemodynamics and quality of radiographic image during canine angiography.
    Nakamura H; Kurata M; Haruta K; Takeda K
    J Vet Med Sci; 1994 Feb; 56(1):91-6. PubMed ID: 8204767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Effect of x-ray contrast agents on the thromboresistant properties of vascular walls].
    Klimanova EV; Makarov VA; Petrukhina GN; Bolotova EN; Shimanovskiĭ NL
    Eksp Klin Farmakol; 2009; 72(2):41-3. PubMed ID: 19441728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. The Iohexol Cooperative Study.
    Rudnick MR; Goldfarb S; Wexler L; Ludbrook PA; Murphy MJ; Halpern EF; Hill JA; Winniford M; Cohen MB; VanFossen DB
    Kidney Int; 1995 Jan; 47(1):254-61. PubMed ID: 7731155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.