These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10123838)

  • 1. Treating bone and joint infections with teicoplanin: hospitalization vs outpatient cost issues.
    Craven PC
    Hosp Formul; 1993 Jan; 28 Suppl 1():41-5. PubMed ID: 10123838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cost implications of home care on serious infections.
    Rubinstein E
    Hosp Formul; 1993 Jan; 28 Suppl 1():46-50. PubMed ID: 10123839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections due to methicillin resistant staphylococci. Experience in adult patients].
    Pensotti C; Nacinovich F; Vidiella G; Carbone E; Marin M; Di Stéfano C; Stamboulian D
    Medicina (B Aires); 2002; 62 Suppl 2():40-7. PubMed ID: 12481488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Current treatment of gram-positive infections: focus on efficacy, safety, and cost minimalization analysis of teicoplanin.
    Crane VS; Garabedian-Ruffalo SM
    Hosp Formul; 1992 Dec; 27(12):1199-200, 1203-4, 1207-10. PubMed ID: 10122506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections. Teicoplanin Bone and Joint Cooperative Study Group, USA.
    LeFrock JL; Ristuccia AM; Ristuccia PA; Quenzer RW; Haggerty PG; Allen JE; Lettau LA; Schwartz R; Appleby D
    Eur J Surg Suppl; 1992; (567):9-13. PubMed ID: 1381644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An economic evaluation of a European cohort from a multinational trial of linezolid versus teicoplanin in serious Gram-positive bacterial infections: the importance of treatment setting in evaluating treatment effects.
    Nathwani D; Li JZ; Balan DA; Willke RJ; Rittenhouse BE; Mozaffari E; Tavakoli M; Tang T
    Int J Antimicrob Agents; 2004 Apr; 23(4):315-24. PubMed ID: 15081078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Linezolid versus teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in the critically ill: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study.
    Cepeda JA; Whitehouse T; Cooper B; Hails J; Jones K; Kwaku F; Taylor L; Hayman S; Shaw S; Kibbler C; Shulman R; Singer M; Wilson AP
    J Antimicrob Chemother; 2004 Feb; 53(2):345-55. PubMed ID: 14711840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Non-inpatient use of teicoplanin.
    Nathwani D
    Int J Clin Pract; 1998; 52(8):577-81. PubMed ID: 10622058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Health economics assessment study of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in Gram-positive infections.
    Portolés A; Palau E; Puerro M; Vargas E; Picazo JJ
    Rev Esp Quimioter; 2006 Mar; 19(1):65-75. PubMed ID: 16688294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Linezolid versus vancomycin for prosthetic joint infections: a cost analysis.
    You JH; Lee GC; So RK; Cheung KW; Hui M
    Infection; 2007 Jun; 35(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 17646907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A pilot study of oral fleroxacin given once daily in patients with bone and joint infections.
    Putz PA
    Am J Med; 1993 Mar; 94(3A):177S-181S. PubMed ID: 8452177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in bone and joint infections].
    Galpérine T; Ader F; Piriou P; Judet T; Perronne C; Bernard L
    Med Mal Infect; 2006 Mar; 36(3):132-7. PubMed ID: 16580802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections.
    Wilcox M; Nathwani D; Dryden M
    J Antimicrob Chemother; 2004 Feb; 53(2):335-44. PubMed ID: 14729745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Randomized prospective study comparing cost-effectiveness of teicoplanin and vancomycin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients.
    Vázquez L; Encinas MP; Morín LS; Vilches P; Gutiérrez N; García-Sanz R; Caballero D; Hurlé AD
    Haematologica; 1999 Mar; 84(3):231-6. PubMed ID: 10189388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Safety, efficacy, and cost savings in an outpatient intravenous antibiotic program.
    Williams DN; Bosch D; Boots J; Schneider J
    Clin Ther; 1993; 15(1):169-79; discussion 168. PubMed ID: 8458046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Pharmacological considerations in the economic evaluation of glycopeptides].
    García-Quetglas E; Sádaba B; Honorato J
    Rev Clin Esp; 1997 Sep; 197 Suppl 2():68-73. PubMed ID: 9441326
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Teicoplanin vs vancomycin: cost-effectiveness comparisons.
    Rybak MJ
    Hosp Formul; 1993 Jan; 28 Suppl 1():28-32. PubMed ID: 10123835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Roundtable discussion. Maximizing potential cost benefits of teicoplanin through appropriate usage.
    Rybak MJ; Allen R; Arnow P; Craven PC; Freeman R; Grüneberg RN; Korin J; Nightingale CH; Rubinstein E; Schaison GS
    Hosp Formul; 1993 Jan; 28 Suppl 1():62-8. PubMed ID: 10123844
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cost analysis of a home intravenous antibiotic program.
    Chamberlain TM; Lehman ME; Groh MJ; Munroe WP; Reinders TP
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1988 Nov; 45(11):2341-5. PubMed ID: 3228090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cost effectiveness of teicoplanin and ceftriaxone: a once-daily antibiotic regimen.
    Schaison GS
    Hosp Formul; 1993 Jan; 28 Suppl 1():20-2. PubMed ID: 10123833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.