The old and the new: a study of five contrast media for urography
- 1 July 1985
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The British Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 58 (691) , 593-597
- https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-58-691-593
Abstract
Five contrast media, Conray 280 and 420, Urografin 370, Uromiro Sodium 300 and Niopam 370, were compared in a randomised trial involving a total of 482 patients. The best urographic agent was Conray 420 and the worst Conray 280, these control agents defining the ends of the scoring system. Uromiro Sodium 300 was very nearly as good as Conray 420. A non-ionic agent, Niopam 370, scored nearly equal with Urografin 370; both were rather better than Conray 280. There was little difference in minor reactions between the media. No reason was found to prefer non-ionic to ionic agents for general use in urography; indeed for a diagnostic examination the sodium salt of an ionic agent is preferable.This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Iopamidol in urographyUrologic Radiology, 1982
- Comparison between iodamide and iothalamate in intravenous urographyClinical Radiology, 1981
- Comparative study of the methylglucamine salts of iodamide and iothalamate in clinical urographyClinical Radiology, 1981
- Renal handling of iodamide and diatrizoate. Evidence of active tubular secretion of iodamideEuropean Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1975
- Sodium or methylglucamine? A comparison of iothalamates in urographyThe British Journal of Radiology, 1971
- A comparison of sodium and methylglucamine diatrizoate in clinical urographyThe British Journal of Radiology, 1971
- THE NORMAL KIDNEY'S REACTION TO INTRAVENOUS PYELOGRAPHYAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 1969