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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8496540)

  • 1. Net costs from three perspectives of using low versus high osmolality contrast medium in diagnostic angiocardiography.
    Powe NR; Davidoff AJ; Moore RD; Brinker JA; Anderson GF; Litt MR; Gopalan R; Graziano SL; Steinberg EP
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1993 Jun; 21(7):1701-9. PubMed ID: 8496540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Adverse reactions to contrast media: factors that determine the cost of treatment.
    Powe NR; Moore RD; Steinberg EP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Nov; 161(5):1089-95. PubMed ID: 8273616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Cost-effective use of low-osmolality contrast media for CT of the liver: evaluation of liver enhancement provided by various doses of iohexol.
    Bree RL; Parisky YR; Bernardino ME; Costello P; Leder R; Brown PC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Sep; 163(3):579-83. PubMed ID: 8079849
    [TBL] [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. 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]  

  • 14. Decision analysis to assess cost-effectiveness of low-osmolality contrast medium for intravenous urography.
    Calvo MV; Pilar del Val M; Mar Alvarez M; Domínguez-Gil A
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1992 Mar; 49(3):577-84. PubMed ID: 1598930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Complications of cardiac angiography using low- or high-osmolality contrast agents in patients with left main coronary stenosis.
    Kussmaul WG; Mishra JP; Matthai WH; Hirshfeld JW
    Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn; 1997 Dec; 42(4):376-9. PubMed ID: 9408613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Low-osmolality contrast media in cardiac radiology.
    Cumberland DC
    Invest Radiol; 1984; 19(6 Suppl):S301-5. PubMed ID: 6392157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Randomized comparison of the cost and effectiveness of iopamidol and diatrizoate as contrast agents for cardiac angiography.
    Hlatky MA; Morris KG; Pieper KS; Davidson CJ; Schwab SJ; Bashore TM
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1990 Oct; 16(4):871-7. PubMed ID: 2120310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of volume of low osmolality contrast medium needed for routine helical abdominal CT.
    Megibow AJ; Jacob G; Heiken JP; Paulson EK; Hopper KD; Sica G; Saini S; Birnbaum BA; Redvanley R; Fishman EK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Mar; 176(3):583-9. PubMed ID: 11222185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.