يعرض 1 - 10 نتائج من 91 نتيجة بحث عن '"teratogenic effect"', وقت الاستعلام: 1.10s تنقيح النتائج
  1. 1
    دورية أكاديمية
  2. 2
    دورية أكاديمية
  3. 3
    دورية أكاديمية
  4. 4
    دورية أكاديمية

    المصدر: Medical Visualization; Принято в печать ; Медицинская визуализация; Принято в печать ; 2408-9516 ; 1607-0763

    وصف الملف: application/pdf

    العلاقة: https://medvis.vidar.ru/jour/article/view/1408/876Test; https://medvis.vidar.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/1408/2223Test; https://medvis.vidar.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/1408/2224Test; https://medvis.vidar.ru/jour/article/downloadSuppFile/1408/2229Test; Трофимова Т.Н., Халиков А.Д., Семенова М.Д. Возможности магнитно-резонансной томографии в изучении формирования головного мозга плода. Лучевая диагностика и терапия. 2017; 4 (8): 6–16. https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2017-4-6-15Test; Amant F., Berveiller P., Boere I.A. et al. Gynecologic cancers in pregnancy: guidelines based on a third international consensus meeting. Ann. Oncol. 2019; 30 (10): 1601–1612. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz228Test; Parpinel G., Laudani M.E., Giunta F.P. et al. Use of positron emission tomography for pregnancy-associated cancer assessment: a review. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11 (13): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133820Test; de Haan J., Verheecke M., Van Calsteren K. et al. Oncological management and obstetric and neonatal outcomes for women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy: a 20-year international cohort study of 1170 patients. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19 (3): 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045Test(18)30059-7; Abramowicz J.S., Kremkau F.W., Merz E. Obstetrical ultrasound: can the fetus hear the wave and feel the heat? Ultraschall Med. 2012; 33 (3): 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1312759Test; Aiken C.E., Lees C.C. Long-term effects of in utero Doppler ultrasound scanning-a developmental programming perspective. Med. Hypotheses. 2012; 78 (4): 539–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2012.01.030Test; Tirada N., Dreizin D., Khati N.J. et al. Imaging pregnant and lactating patients. RadioGraphics. 2015; 35 (6): 1751–1765. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015150031Test; Wei K., Mulvagh S.L., Carson L. et al. The safety of definity and optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2008; 21 (11): 1202–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2008.07.019Test; Piscaglia F., Bolondi L., Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) study group on ultrasound contrast agents. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2006; 32 (9): 1369–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.031Test; Sidhu P.S., Cantisani V., Dietrich C.F. et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall Med. 2018; 39 (2): e2–e44. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0586-1107Test; Perelli F., Turrini I., Giorgi M.G. et al. Contrast agents during pregnancy: pros and cons when really needed. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19 (24): 16699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416699Test; Kanal E., Barkovich A.J., Bell C. et al.; ACR Blue Ribbon Panel on MR Safety. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007; Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007. 188 (6): 1447–1474. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1616Test; Hartwig V., Giovannetti G., Vanello N. et al. Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2009; 6 (6): 1778–1798. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6061778Test; Chartier A.L., Bouvier M.J., McPherson D.R. et al. The safety of maternal and fetal MRI at 3T. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019; 213 (5): 1170–1173. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21400Test; Ray J.G., Vermeulen M.J., Bharatha A. et al. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA. 2016; 316 (9): 952–961. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12126Test; Gomes M., Matias A., Macedo F. Risks to the fetus from diagnostic imaging during pregnancy: review and proposal of a clinical protocol. Pediatr. Radiol. 2015; 45 (13): 1916–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3403-zTest; Mervak B.M., Altun E., McGinty K.A. et al. MRI in pregnancy: Indications and practical considerations. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2019; 49 (3): 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26317Test; Синицын В.Е. Безопасность магнитно-резонансной томографии – современное состояние вопроса. Диагностическая и интервенционная радиология. 2010. 4 (3): 61–66. https://doi.org/10.25512/DIR.2010.04.3.10Test; Behzadi A.H., Zhao Y., Farooq Z., Prince M.R. Immediate allergic reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2018; 286 (2): 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162740Test; Fraum T.J., Ludwig D.R., Bashir M.R., Fowler K.J. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: a comprehensive risk assessment. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2017; 46 (2): 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25625Test; Cheong B.Y.C., Wilson J.M., Preventza O.A., Muthupillai R. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: updates and answers to typical questions regarding gadolinium use. Tex. Heart Inst. J. 2022; 49 (3): e217680. https://doi.org/10.14503/THIJ-21-7680Test; Potts J., Lisonkova S., Murphy D.T., Lim K. Gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging during pregnancy associated with adverse neonatal and post-neonatal outcomes. J. Pediatr. 2017; 180: 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.061Test; Costello J.R., Kalb B., Martin D.R. Incidence and risk factors for gadolinium-based contrast agent immediate reactions. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2016; 25 (6): 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000109Test; Cowper S.E., Boyer P.J. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: An update. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 2006; 8 (2): 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-006-0056-9Test; Kanal E., Tweedle M.F. Residual or retained gadolinium: practical implications for radiologists and our patients. Radiology. 2015; 275 (3): 630–634. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015150805Test; Kodzwa R. ACR manual on contrast media: 2018 updates. Radiol. Technol. 2019; 91 (1): 97–100.; De Santis M., Straface G., Cavaliere A.F. et al. Gadolinium periconceptional exposure: pregnancy and neonatal outcome. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2007; 86 (1): 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340600804639Test; Thomsen H.S. ESUR guidelines on contrast agents version 10.0. Contrast Media Safety Committee, 2018; 44 p.; Gatta G., Di Grezia G., Cuccurullo V. et al. MRI in pregnancy and precision medicine: a review from literature. J. Pers. Med. 2021; 12 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12010009Test; Ghaghada K.B., Starosolski Z.A., Bhayana S. et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of a nanoparticle-based blood-pool contrast agent for MR imaging of the placenta. Placenta. 2017; 57: 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2017.06.008Test; Семенова Е.С., Мащенко И.А., Труфанов Г.Е. Магнитно-резонансная томография при беременности: актуальные вопросы безопасности. Российский Электронный журнал лучевой диагностики. 2020; 10 (1): 216–230. https://doi.org/10.21569/2222-7415-2020-10-1-216-230Test; Ratnapalan S., Bentur Y., Koren G. Doctor, will that x-ray harm my unborn child? CMAJ. 2008; 179 (12): 1293–1296. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080247Test; Brent R.L. Protection of the gametes embryo/fetus from prenatal radiation exposure. Health Physics. 2015; 108 (2): 242–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000235Test; Санитарные правила и нормативы. Нормы радиационной безопасности (НРБ–99/2009): cанитарно-эпидемиологичeские правила и нормативы. Москва – Федеральный центр гигиены и эпидемиологии Роспотребнадзора. 2009. 100 c.; ACR-SPR practice parameter for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant adolescents and women with ionizing radiation [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Radiology-Safety/Radiation-SafetyTest (accessed: 05.03.2023).; Публикация 103 Международной комиссии по радиационной защите (МКРЗ): Пер. с англ. / Под. общей ред. М.Ф. Киселёва, Н.К. Шандалы. М.: Изд-во ООО ПКФ “Алана”, 2009. 344 с.; Крылов А.С., Наркевич Б.Я., Рыжков А.Д. Определение дозы-облучения плода у беременных женщин с раком молочной железы при сцинтиграфии сторожевых лимфатических узлов. Онкологический журнал: лучевая диагностика, лучевая терапия. 2021; 4 (4); 78–87. https://doi.org/10.37174/2587-7593-2021-4-4-78-87Test; Raman S.P., Johnson P.T., Deshmukh S. et al. CT dose reduction applications: available tools on the latest generation of CT scanners. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2013. 10 (1): 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.06.025Test; Colletti P.M., Micheli O.A., Lee K.H. To shield or not to shield: application of bismuth breast shields. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013; 200 (3): 503–507. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9997Test; Кондрашов И.А., Мандал В. Неионные низкоосмолярные мономерные йодированные рентгеноконтрастные средства: некоторые аспекты использования при проведении компьютерной томографии у детей. Медицинская визуализация. 2017; 6: 118–129. https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2017-6-118-129Test; Webb J.A., Thomsen H.S., Morcos S.K; Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). The use of iodinated and gadolinium contrast media during pregnancy and lactation. Eur. Radiol. 2005; 15 (6): 1234–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2583-yTest; Rajaram S., Exley C.E., Fairlie F., Matthews S. Effect of antenatal iodinated contrast agent on neonatal thyroid function. Br. J. Radiol. 2012; 85 (1015): e238–e242. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/29806327Test; Kochi M.H., Kaloudis E.V., Ahmed W., Moore W.H. Effect of in utero exposure of iodinated intravenous contrast on neonatal thyroid function. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2012; 36 (2): 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1097/rct.0b013e31824cc048Test; Зиновьев А.Н., Мотовилова Т.М., Качалина Т.С. Место количественной оценки проходимости маточных труб в определении прогноза лечения трубно-перитонеального бесплодия. РМЖ. Мать и дитя. 2013; 21 (14): 760.; American College of Radiology. Manual on contrast media, version 10.2; American College of Radiology: Reston, VA, USA, 2023. 148 p.; Wang P.I., Chong S.T., Kielar A.Z. et al. Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 2, evidence-based review and recommendations. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2012; 198 (4): 785–792. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8223Test; Despierres M., Boudy A.S., Selleret L. et al. Feasibility, safety and impact of (18F)-FDG PET/CT in patients with pregnancy-associated cancer: experience of the French CALG (Cancer Associé à La Grossesse) network. Acta Oncol. 2022; 61 (3): 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2021.2004323Test; Zanotti-Fregonara P., Champion C., Trébossen R. et al. Estimation of the beta+ dose to the embryo resulting from 18F-FDG administration during early pregnancy. J. Nucl. Med. 2008; 49 (4): 679–682. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.048900Test; Benveniste H., Fowler J.S., Rooney W.D. et al. Maternal-fetal in vivo imaging: a combined PET and MRI study. J. Nucl. Med. 2003; 44 (9): 1522–1530.; Zanotti-Fregonara P., Ishiguro T., Yoshihara K. et al. 18F-FDG fetal dosimetry calculated with PET/MRI. J. Nucl. Med. 2022; 63 (10): 1592–1597. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263561Test; Gropper A.B., Calvillo K.Z., Dominici L. et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnant women with breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014; 21 (8): 2506–2511. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3718-2Test; Han S.N., Amant F., Cardonick E.H. et al. Axillary staging for breast cancer during pregnancy: feasibility and safety of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2018; 168 (2): 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4611-zTest; Han S.N., Amant F., Michielsen K. et al. Feasibility of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of primary tumour, nodal and distant metastases in women with cancer during pregnancy: a pilot study. Eur. Radiol. 2018; 28 (5): 1862–1874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5126-zTest; https://medvis.vidar.ru/jour/article/view/1408Test

  5. 5
    دورية أكاديمية
  6. 6
    دورية أكاديمية
  7. 7
    دورية أكاديمية
  8. 8
  9. 9
    دورية أكاديمية
  10. 10
    دورية أكاديمية