AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gerzof, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wickis, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gerzof, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wickis, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 128, Issue 2, 211-215
Copyright © 1977 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Double-blind comparison of meglumine iodamide and Renografin-60 for excretory urography

SG Gerzof, AH Robbins, G Unger, A Zaki, and EA Wickis

A double blind comparison of meglumine iodamide and Renografin-60 in bolus intravenous pyelography, using 50 ml of contrast or less, was conducted in 78 patients. Meglumine iodamide produced more dense opacifications, but it also produced a greater number of laboratory abnormalities. All were transient and mild. No serious abnormalities resulted from the use of either agent.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1977 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.