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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9114079)

  • 1. Universal use of low-osmolality contrast media for the 1990s.
    Radensky PW; Cahill NE
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):310-1; discussion 312-5. PubMed ID: 9114079
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Selective use of radiographic low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s.
    Ellis JH; Cohan RH; Sonnad SS; Cohan NS
    Radiology; 1996 Aug; 200(2):297-311. PubMed ID: 8685315
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s: prices change.
    Palmisano SM
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):309; discussion 312-4. PubMed ID: 9114078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The adoption of low-osmolar contrast agents in the United States: historical analysis of health policy and clinical practice.
    Wilmot A; Mehta N; Jha S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Nov; 199(5):1049-53. PubMed ID: 23096178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. High-osmolality and low-osmolality contrast agents.
    Parfrey PS; Barrett BJ
    N Engl J Med; 1992 Jul; 327(3):204-5. PubMed ID: 1608421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Universal versus selective use of low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s: a radiologist's perspective.
    Silverman PM
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):311-2; discussion 312-4. PubMed ID: 9114080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Malpractice, informed consent, and the use of low osmolality contrast media.
    Eisner JM; Casey BJ
    Conn Med; 1988 Feb; 52(2):87-91. PubMed ID: 3278846
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. High-osmolality and low-osmolality contrast agents.
    Paulin S
    N Engl J Med; 1992 Jul; 327(3):202-3; author reply 204-5. PubMed ID: 1608418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Selective use of low osmolality contrast agents: cost and benefits.
    Ohnesorgen EG; Yoshino MT
    Radiol Technol; 1988; 59(6):499-502. PubMed ID: 3136507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The safety and cost-effectiveness of low osmolar contrast media.
    Benness GT
    Med J Aust; 1991 Nov; 155(9):646-8. PubMed ID: 1943970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Low-osmolality contrast media: good news or bad?
    Evens RG
    Radiology; 1988 Oct; 169(1):277-8. PubMed ID: 3138706
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Contrast media markdown.
    Bieze J
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1996 Dec; 18(12):49-51, 54, 59. PubMed ID: 10163650
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Cost-effectiveness and safety of selective use of low-osmolality contrast media.
    Michalson A; Franken EA; Smith W
    Acad Radiol; 1994 Sep; 1(1):59-62. PubMed ID: 9419466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Selection of contrast media: current status of understanding].
    Briguori C
    G Ital Cardiol (Rome); 2009 Feb; 10(2):79-87. PubMed ID: 19348144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Low osmolar (non-ionic) contrast media versus high osmolar (ionic) contrast media in intravenous urography and enhanced computerized tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Wangsuphachart S
    Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health; 1991 Dec; 22(4):664-76. PubMed ID: 1820658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.