Talk:Contrast medium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)