|
|
Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 83-86
|
|
Primum non nocere? Why can't we use second generation ultrasound contrast agents for the examination of children?
a
a
NONE
|
|
Author keywords
[No Author keywords available]
|
|
Indexed keywords
ALBUMINOID;
CONTRAST AGENT BR1;
CONTRAST MEDIUM;
DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;
FLUOROCARBON;
PERFLUTREN;
PHOSPHOLIPID;
SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE;
ADULT;
CHILD;
DRUG APPROVAL;
DRUG TOXICITY;
ECHOGRAPHY;
ETHICS;
EUROPE;
HUMAN;
LEGAL ASPECT;
LETTER;
MEDICAL ETHICS;
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;
UNITED STATES;
ADULT;
ALBUMINS;
CHILD;
CONTRAST MEDIA;
DRUG APPROVAL;
DRUG TOXICITY;
ETHICS COMMITTEES;
EUROPE;
FLUOROCARBONS;
HIPPOCRATIC OATH;
HUMANS;
PHOSPHOLIPIDS;
SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE;
ULTRASONOGRAPHY;
UNITED STATES;
|
|
EID: 79551686444
PISSN: None
EISSN: 14388782
Source Type: Journal
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245918 Document Type: Letter |
|
Times cited : (19)
|
|
References (0)
|
