Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:520345rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0023895lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:520345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0030705lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:520345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1708335lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:520345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0521378lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:520345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:520345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0450442lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:issue5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:dateCreated1980-3-24lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:abstractTextThe kinetics of the iminodiacetic acids, dimethyl and diethyl IDA were studied in patients without and with liver disease. Diethyl IDA seems to be superior to dimethyl IDA in its diagnostic usefulness. It shows lower urinary excretion and a faster liver uptake, leading to more pronounced differences in liver peak time and in liver elimination half time and to faster visualisation of the gall bladder in patients with liver disease. The enterohepatic reabsorption is negligible as shown by enteral administration of the radiopharmaceutical and monitoring blood activity. Therefore it is not necessary to correct time activity curves of the liver for the IDA secreted into the gastrointestinal system. The most valuable diagnostic information with this substances may be gained in investigations on cholecystectomized patients with cholestasis.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:monthOctlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:issn0340-6997lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AngelbergerPPlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DudczakRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KletterKKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FrischaufHHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:volume4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:pagination365-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:520345-H...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:520345-L...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:520345-T...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:520345-I...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:year1979lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:articleTitleComparison of two different biliary agents in healthy subjects and in patients with liver disease.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:520345pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed