Linked Life Data

1826061

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/1826061

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
1
pubmed:dateCreated
1991-4-23
pubmed:abstractText
The authors analyzed data from two recent articles in Radiology in which the quality and results of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy or safety of the low-osmolality contrast media (LOM) iopamidol, iohexol, and ioxaglate with that of the high-osmolarity contrast media (HOM) diatrizoate, iodamide, iopamide, iothalamate, and metrizoate were assessed. One conclusion in the source articles was that no differences were seen between the two groups of contrast media in frequency of nausea, vomiting, and urticaria. However, the LOM group included both nonionic LOM (NIM) and the ionic contrast medium ioxaglate. The authors found that various complications associated with the use of contrast media were much less common with NIM than with HOM; statistically this lower frequency is highly significant. This difference was obscured in the previous studies by the pooling of RCTs in which the less toxic NIM were used and RCTs in which the more toxic ionic contrast medium ioxaglate was used.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Apr
pubmed:issn
0033-8419
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
179
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
19-22
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1991
pubmed:articleTitle
Miscellaneous adverse effects of low-versus high-osmolality contrast media: a study revised.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Radiology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Comment, Meta-Analysis