{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02442528735632184, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.114035087719298, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of urograms using ionic contrast, non-ionic contrast and non-ionic contrast with mannitol.

Urograms were performed on sixty patients and patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups. One group of patients received ionic contrast, one group received non-ionic contrast agent alone, and one group received non-ionic contrast agent with Mannitol. All patients had normal renal function. The nephrographic phase of the urograms performed with non-ionic contrast agent, with or without Mannitol, were no better than those performed with ionic contrast agent. However the pyelographic phase of the urograms were better using non-ionic agent than those using ionic contrast media.