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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

153 related items for PubMed ID: 1529856

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The risks of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low-osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis.
    Caro JJ, Trindade E, McGregor M.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Apr; 156(4):825-32. PubMed ID: 1825900
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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 13; 326(7):425-30. PubMed ID: 1732769
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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 13; 49(3):577-84. PubMed ID: 1598930
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Cost-effectiveness of unenhanced MR imaging vs contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen or pelvis.
    Lessler DS, Sullivan SD, Stergachis A.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jul 13; 163(1):5-9. PubMed ID: 8010246
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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 13; 151(2):271-4. PubMed ID: 3260719
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Low-osmolality contrast media: good news or bad?
    Evens RG.
    Radiology; 1988 Oct 13; 169(1):277-8. PubMed ID: 3138706
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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 13; 169(1):163-8. PubMed ID: 3420254
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 13; 21(7):1701-9. PubMed ID: 8496540
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast material for intravenous use in patients perceived to be at high risk: randomized trial.
    Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, McDonald JR, Hefferton DM, Reddy ER, McManamon PJ.
    Radiology; 1992 Apr 13; 183(1):105-10. PubMed ID: 1549654
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 13; 326(7):431-6. PubMed ID: 1732770
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Medical and economic considerations in using a new contrast medium.
    Fischer HW, Spataro RF, Rosenberg PM.
    Arch Intern Med; 1986 Sep 13; 146(9):1717-21. PubMed ID: 3092757
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Liquid gold: low-osmolality contrast media.
    White RI, Halden WJ.
    Radiology; 1986 May 13; 159(2):559-60. PubMed ID: 3515427
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 13; 22(4):664-76. PubMed ID: 1820658
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Cost-effectiveness and safety of selective use of low-osmolality contrast media.
    Michalson A, Franken EA, Smith W.
    Acad Radiol; 1994 Sep 13; 1(1):59-62. PubMed ID: 9419466
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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 13; 32(2):182-8. PubMed ID: 23242291
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Cost containment in the use of low-osmolar contrast agents: effect of guidelines, monitoring, and feedback mechanisms.
    Levin DC, Gardiner GA, Karasick S, Shaber GS, Wechsler RJ, McArdle GH, Lockard CD, Harford RJ.
    Radiology; 1993 Dec 13; 189(3):753-7. PubMed ID: 8234700
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development.
    Goel V, Deber RB, Detsky AS.
    CMAJ; 1989 Feb 15; 140(4):389-95. PubMed ID: 2492446
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.