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 *

71 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9694479)

  • 41. Simethicone coated cellulose as an oral contrast agent for ultrasound of the upper abdomen.
    Stewart I; Cooke P
    Clin Radiol; 1998 Mar; 53(3):234. PubMed ID: 9528881
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Commentary: oral contrast medium administration for abdominal CT - reevaluating the benefits and disadvantages in the pediatric patient.
    Donnelly LF
    Pediatr Radiol; 1997 Sep; 27(9):770-2. PubMed ID: 9285746
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Hydrosonography of the gastrointestinal tract.
    Maconi G; Radice E; Bareggi E; Porro GB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Sep; 193(3):700-8. PubMed ID: 19696283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Standard properties of ultrasound contrast agents.
    Bouakaz A; De Jong N; Cachard C
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 1998 Mar; 24(3):469-72. PubMed ID: 9588001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Development of an oral contrast agent for sonography: clinical and economic considerations.
    LaFrance ND; Yin D; Brooks K; Lev-Toaff AS; Bensel KS; Meeks MJ; Macchi D
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Apr; 3 Suppl 1():S160-1. PubMed ID: 8796551
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Factors affecting image quality and diagnostic efficacy in abdominal sonography: a prospective study of 140 patients.
    Shmulewitz A; Teefey SA; Robinson BS
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1993; 21(9):623-30. PubMed ID: 8227392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Contrast-enhanced gastrointestinal trans-abdominal and endoscopic ultrasonography: an idea whose time has come.
    Bhutani MS; Barde CJ
    Am J Gastroenterol; 1997 Nov; 92(11):1976-80. PubMed ID: 9362175
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Echogenicity of sonographic contrast media at variable shear rates and concentrations.
    Kallio T; Alanen A; Bondestam S
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Aug; 3 Suppl 2():S312-4. PubMed ID: 8796589
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Potential role of Calogen as an oral contrast medium in the evaluation of the gastric wall at MRI.
    Lohan DG; Walsh SM; Allen RH; Cronin CG; Meehan CP; Murphy JM; McCarthy PA
    Eur Radiol; 2006 Dec; 16(12):2828-33. PubMed ID: 16865366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. An in vitro comparison of ultrasonic contrast agents in solutions with varying air levels.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Anderson T; McDicken WN
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2000 Jun; 26(5):807-18. PubMed ID: 10942828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Normal endosonographic findings.
    Hawes RH
    Gastrointest Endosc; 1996 Feb; 43(2 Pt 2):S6-10. PubMed ID: 8929798
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Preliminary cost-effectiveness evaluation of an oral sonographic contrast agent using a decision modeling technique.
    LaFrance ND; Brooks K; Yin D; Parker JR; Bensel K; Macchi D; Lev-Toaff AS
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Aug; 3 Suppl 2():S426-31. PubMed ID: 8796621
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Double aorta artifact in sonography - a diagnostic challenge.
    Hadzik R; Bombiński P; Brzewski M
    J Ultrason; 2017 Mar; 17(68):36-40. PubMed ID: 28439427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. In vitro evaluation of a new echographic contrast agent.
    Cennamo G; Rosa N
    Ophthalmologica; 1998; 212 Suppl 1():85-8. PubMed ID: 9730762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Experimental investigations on intracavity sonography. Part 1: Alteration of imaging by variation of the contents of rigid hollow receptacles or isolated porcine urinary bladders.
    Jaeger N; Vahlensieck W
    Urol Res; 1986; 14(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 3515733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Double contrast-enhanced two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasonography for evaluation of gastric lesions.
    Shi H; Yu XH; Guo XZ; Guo Y; Zhang H; Qian B; Wei ZR; Li L; Wang XC; Kong ZX
    World J Gastroenterol; 2012 Aug; 18(31):4136-44. PubMed ID: 22919245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Improved retroperitoneal and gastrointestinal sonography using oral contrast agents in a porcine model.
    Muradali D; Burns PN; Pron G; Hope-Simpson D; Wilson S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Aug; 171(2):475-81. PubMed ID: 9694479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Cellulose as a gastrointestinal US contrast agent.
    Lund PJ; Fritz TA; Unger EC; Hunt RK; Fuller E
    Radiology; 1992 Dec; 185(3):783-8. PubMed ID: 1438763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Effect of cellulose concentration on the efficacy of a cellulose-based oral contrast agent for gastrointestinal ultrasonography.
    Sisler WJ; Tilcock C
    J Ultrasound Med; 1995 Apr; 14(4):267-72. PubMed ID: 7602683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of simethicone-coated cellulose as a negative oral contrast agent for abdominal CT.
    Sahani DV; Jhaveri KS; D'souza RV; Varghese JC; Halpern E; Harisinghani MG; Hahn PF; Saini S
    Acad Radiol; 2003 May; 10(5):491-6. PubMed ID: 12755536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.