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.
2. Ionic versus nonionic contrast media. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Nov; 167(5):1095-7. PubMed ID: 8911157 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Frequency and effects of extravasation of ionic and nonionic CT contrast media during rapid bolus injection. Federle MP; Chang PJ; Confer S; Ozgun B Radiology; 1998 Mar; 206(3):637-40. PubMed ID: 9494479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Injury due to extravasation of nonionic contrast material. Young RA AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jun; 162(6):1499. PubMed ID: 8192049 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Contrast media extravasation: manual versus power injector. Sinan T; Al-Khawari H; Chishti FA; Al Saeed OM; Sheikh M Med Princ Pract; 2005; 14(2):107-10. PubMed ID: 15785103 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of soft tissue effects of conventional ionic, low osmolar ionic and nonionic iodine containing contrast material in experimental animals. McAlister WH; Kissane JM Pediatr Radiol; 1990; 20(3):170-4. PubMed ID: 2352794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Ionic vs. nonionic contrast media. Lloyd K Radiol Technol; 1994; 66(1):57-9. PubMed ID: 7997528 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Intravenous use of ionic and nonionic contrast agents in children. Cohen MD; Smith JA Radiology; 1994 Jun; 191(3):793-4. PubMed ID: 8184066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Economics and efficacy of the use of contrast media]. Seyferth W Aktuelle Radiol; 1991 Nov; 1(6):294-7. PubMed ID: 1821632 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Identification and minimization of risk factors in angiography. Bonomo L; De Pascale A; Salute L; Cattaneo G; Spinazzi A Rays; 1988; 13(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 3256020 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Gangrene of the foot following peripheral phlebography. Coulthard A J R Coll Surg Edinb; 1992 Apr; 37(2):137. PubMed ID: 1377262 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]