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

Journal Abstract Search


178 related items for PubMed ID: 2568817

  • 1. Renal and hepatic tolerance of nonionic and ionic contrast media in intravenous digital subtraction angiography.
    Langer M, Junge W, Keysser R, Hasford J, Jänicke UA.
    Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen Nuklearmed Erganzungsbd; 1989; 128():95-100. PubMed ID: 2568817
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. Contrast agent nephrotoxicity: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents.
    Stacul F, Carraro M, Magnaldi S, Faccini L, Guarnieri G, Dalla Palma L.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Dec; 149(6):1287-9. PubMed ID: 2891285
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Intravenous digital subtraction angiography with iohexol (Omnipaque) and sodium meglumin diatrizoate (Urografin).
    Karle A, Fries J, Laulund S, Andrew E.
    Diagn Imaging Clin Med; 1986 Dec; 55(6):352-9. PubMed ID: 3545629
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Incidence of fibrillation with isotonic contrast media for intra-arterial coronary digital subtraction angiography.
    Morris TW, Hayakawa K, Sahler LG, Ekholm S.
    Diagn Imaging Clin Med; 1986 Dec; 55(3):109-13. PubMed ID: 3522039
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Comparison of iohexol with meglumine-Na diatrizoate for intravenous digital subtraction angiography.
    Seeger JF, Carmody RF, Smith JR, Horsley WW, Criss E.
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1983 Dec; 366():85-8. PubMed ID: 6382940
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. [Comparison of 2 non-ionic radiographic contrast agents in intravenous subtraction angiography].
    Kristensen J, Andresen JH.
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1989 Jun 05; 151(23):1474-5. PubMed ID: 2660379
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Pharmacokinetics of iohexol, iopamidol, iopromide, and iosimide compared with meglumine diatrizoate.
    Hartwig P, Mützel W, Taenzer V.
    Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen Nuklearmed Erganzungsbd; 1989 Jun 05; 128():220-3. PubMed ID: 2568800
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A comparison of iopromide with iopamidol and iohexol for contrast-enhanced computed tomography.
    Goldberg SN, Abrahams J, Drayer BP, Golding S, Bernardino M, Brunetti J.
    Invest Radiol; 1994 May 05; 29 Suppl 1():S76-83; discussion S93. PubMed ID: 8071050
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]


    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.