Talk:Contrast agent

Merge into Radiocontrast

I would deem contrast medium and radiocontrast synonyms or near-synonyms, and suspect that the authors did not intend to duplicate this information. So I suggest these articles should be merged.

The radiocontrast article is more substantial, and has a completely unambiguous name. On the other hand, my experience (and crude estimate by both Google and Pubmed searching) suggests that "contrast medium" is by far the more common usage. So perhaps the merge should be in the other direction? -- JVinocur 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I support both the merge, and the direction (retain 'radiocontrast' and link 'contrast medium'). And while the Google count is higher for contrast medium, radiocontrast is a more precise term (the beauty of redirects is that doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing). -- MarcoTolo 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I (respectfully) disagree. As I understand it, contrast media for MRI studies would not count as radiocontrast. Maybe this article (Contrast medium) should rather be expanded past radioopaque substances, to encompass contrast media for other studies. For example, bubbles used in echocardiography to assess for septal defects. Terrace4 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's an excellent point. My medical dictionary is pretty useless here (it doesn't have "radiocontrast" at all, and has a pretty limited view of "contrast medium"), but looking at Pubmed, there's virtually nothing on "radiocontrast AND mri". Therefore, if we intend to include the other contrast media you mention, it can't be in "radiocontrast". So now I see several options:

1. Merge into "contrast medium" and cover everything there
2. Merge into "radiocontrast" and use "see also" or similar to refer people to specific pages on MRI, echo, etc
3. Keep "contrast medium" as a general overview page, with "for full article" links to specific pages -- and keep "radiocontrast" as one of the specific pages.

I'm not fond of #2; I could live with #1; and I'm newly intrigued by #3. Thoughts? -- JVinocur 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• #3 sounds best to me, too, as it provides the greates room for expansion of each topic, while retaining clarity. I should note that I have no idea whether bubbles in echocardiography actually classify as a "contrast medium". Terrace4 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC

• Having substantially expanded this article, I disagree that the two articles should be merged. They focus on slightly different topics in the world of x-ray contrast media. If anything the Radiocontrast article should be merged into Contrast medium, as the term Radiocontrast in confusing and out of date. Contrast medium encompasses all types of contrast used in all diagnostic imaging modalities. Admittedly some of the information on the Radiocontrast page would also be useful here.Heather 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Glizty_queen00

• I favor going ahead with #3 above. To me, this means that most of the contrast media article will go to the radiocontrast page since the contrast media page currently has only a little content on MRI, bubbles, and air.Badgettrg 12:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Allergy to Iodine

Whoever wrote that you cannot be allergic to Iodine has been misinformed. I personlly have met more than one patient who has testified to this. It is possible to be allergic to anything. In the UK allergy to contrast media is seen as very serious and is screened rigorously. If a radiographer is to administer contrast he/she must be sure that the likelyhood of a reaction is as low as possible. Heather 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Glitzy_queen00

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contrast medium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317002849/http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/33/1/19/22/ to http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/33/1/19/22/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Shuja Ahmad khokhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.134.210 (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)