Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:8181208rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0040405lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8181208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205281lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8181208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0041618lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8181208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0917874lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8181208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707520lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8181208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1512289lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:dateCreated1994-6-14lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:abstractTextIn this report we evaluated the indications, the results and limits of MR examination in the diagnosis of neoplastic diseases affecting the ovary and in the staging of endometrial or cervical cancerous processes. MR findings are compared with the results of other techniques like Ultrasonography or Computed Tomography. The best advantages of MR imaging are the lack of radiation and the possibility of multiplanar studies of the pathologies. For these reasons we consider MR imaging a more accurate method for the study of neoplastic disease affecting the gynecologic sphere.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:languageitalld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:monthFeblld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:issn0009-9074lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:VolpeAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:D'AgostinoAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:GualdiG FGFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PolettiniEElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CeroniA MAMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CascianoCClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:volume144lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:pagination139-46lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8181208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8181208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8181208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8181208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8181208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8181208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:year1994lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:articleTitle[Correlations between magnetic resonance, ultrasonography, and computerized tomography in invasive gynecologic pathology].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:affiliationI Clinica Medica, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8181208pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed