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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9477291)

  • 1. The financial impact of Denmark's decision to restrict the use of high-osmolar contrast media in intravascular radiographic procedures.
    Thomsen HS; Archer JW; Schiermer L; Radensky PW
    Eur Radiol; 1998; 8(2):321-2. PubMed ID: 9477291
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Financial impact of Denmark's decision to restrict use of high-osmolar contrast media.
    Thomsen HS
    Acad Radiol; 1998 Sep; 5 Suppl 2():S450-3. PubMed ID: 9750882
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A case study of the decision in Denmark to restrict use of high-osmolar contrast media in intravascular radiographic procedures.
    Thomsen HS; Archer JW; Schiermer L; Radensky PW
    Acad Radiol; 1997 Jun; 4(6):446-50. PubMed ID: 9189203
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Noncompliance with guidelines for intravascular use of lower-osmolality contrast media.
    Damiani DR; Swanson DP; Hanwell LL
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1993 Jun; 50(6):1204-6. PubMed ID: 8517462
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Intravascular contrast media: can we justify the continued use of ionic contrast agents?
    Thomas SM; Williams JE; Adam EJ
    Clin Radiol; 1997 Jan; 52(1):59-61. PubMed ID: 9022583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Universal use of low-osmolar contrast media: a European perspective.
    Thomsen HS
    Acad Radiol; 1994 Nov; 1(3):295-7. PubMed ID: 9419502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contrast media costs can be reduced still more.
    Campbell JW
    Hosp Mater Manage; 1997 May; 22(5):12. PubMed ID: 10167086
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Selection of intravascular contrast media in clinical radiology.
    Boijsen E
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1983; 366():180-4. PubMed ID: 6433654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Incorporating ultrasound contrast in the laboratory: a series on contrast echocardiography, article 1.
    Moos S; Odabashian J; Jasper S; Bednarz J; Burgess P; Carney D; Floer S; Gresser C; Moore V; Sisk E; Trough M; Waggoner A; Witt S; Adams D
    J Am Soc Echocardiogr; 2000 Mar; 13(3):240-7. PubMed ID: 10708474
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Safer contrast agents?
    Dawson P; Allison DJ
    Br J Hosp Med; 1989 Nov; 42(5):406-7. PubMed ID: 2597825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Comparison of patient responses to high- and low-osmolality contrast agents injected intravenously.
    Bagg MN; Horwitz TA; Bester L
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1986 Jul; 147(1):185-7. PubMed ID: 3487214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Low-osmolar contrast media in the 1990s. Guidelines for urography in a cost-sensitive environment.
    Gavant ML
    Invest Radiol; 1993 Nov; 28 Suppl 5():S13-9; discussion S20. PubMed ID: 8282497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ionic vs. nonionic contrast media.
    Lloyd K
    Radiol Technol; 1994; 66(1):57-9. PubMed ID: 7997528
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Low osmolar contrast media: a quality and cost dilemma.
    Ostrander JR
    Coll Rev; 1992; 9(2):25-39. PubMed ID: 10121945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Intravenous contrast media: use and associated mortality.
    Cashman JD; McCredie J; Henry DA
    Med J Aust; 1991 Nov; 155(9):618-23. PubMed ID: 1943961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.