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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10649141)

  • 1. Sensitivity and specificity of the Braden Scale in the cardiac surgical population.
    Lewicki LJ; Mion LC; Secic M
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2000 Jan; 27(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 10649141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence and a modification of the Braden Scale for a rehabilitation unit.
    Schue RM; Langemo DK
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 1998 Jan; 25(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 9481286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden, Braden, and Norton scales in acute care hospitals in Mainland China.
    Kwong E; Pang S; Wong T; Ho J; Shao-ling X; Li-jun T
    Appl Nurs Res; 2005 May; 18(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 15991112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pressure ulcer risk assessment immediately after cardiac surgery--does it make a difference? A comparison of three pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments within a cardiac surgery population.
    Feuchtinger J; Halfens R; Dassen T
    Nurs Crit Care; 2007; 12(1):42-9. PubMed ID: 17883663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. All at-risk patients are not created equal: analysis of Braden pressure ulcer risk scores to identify specific risks.
    Tescher AN; Branda ME; Byrne TJ; Naessens JM
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2012; 39(3):282-91. PubMed ID: 22552104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Subscales, subscores, or summative score: evaluating the contribution of Braden Scale items for predicting pressure ulcer risk in older adults receiving home health care.
    Bergquist S
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2001 Nov; 28(6):279-89. PubMed ID: 11707760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of the Braden Scale for pressure ulcer risk assessment in a community hospital setting: the role of total score and individual subscale scores in triggering preventive interventions.
    Gadd MM; Morris SM
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2014; 41(6):535-8. PubMed ID: 25377103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Incidence of pressure ulcers in a neurologic intensive care unit.
    Fife C; Otto G; Capsuto EG; Brandt K; Lyssy K; Murphy K; Short C
    Crit Care Med; 2001 Feb; 29(2):283-90. PubMed ID: 11246307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Predicting pressure ulcer risk: a multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden Scale.
    Bergstrom N; Braden B; Kemp M; Champagne M; Ruby E
    Nurs Res; 1998; 47(5):261-9. PubMed ID: 9766454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale and nurse perception in identifying pressure ulcer risk.
    VandenBosch T; Montoye C; Satwicz M; Durkee-Leonard K; Boylan-Lewis B
    Appl Nurs Res; 1996 May; 9(2):80-6. PubMed ID: 8871435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Predictive validity of Waterlow Scale for pressure ulcer development risk in hospitalized patients.
    Serpa LF; de Gouveia Santos VL; Gomboski G; Rosado SM
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2009; 36(6):640-6. PubMed ID: 19920745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for Pressure Ulcer Risk in elderly residents of long-term care facilities.
    de Souza DM; Santos VL; Iri HK; Sadasue Oguri MY
    Geriatr Nurs; 2010; 31(2):95-104. PubMed ID: 20381710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Challenge of Predicting Pressure Ulcers in Critically Ill Patients. A Multicenter Cohort Study.
    Ranzani OT; Simpson ES; Japiassú AM; Noritomi DT;
    Ann Am Thorac Soc; 2016 Oct; 13(10):1775-1783. PubMed ID: 27463839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Predicting pressure ulcer risk in pediatric patients: the Braden Q Scale.
    Curley MA; Razmus IS; Roberts KE; Wypij D
    Nurs Res; 2003; 52(1):22-33. PubMed ID: 12552172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison Study of Braden Scale and Time-to-Erythema Measures in Long-term Care.
    Yap TL; Rapp MP; Kennerly S; Cron SG; Bergstrom N
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2015; 42(5):461-7. PubMed ID: 26336042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An interrater reliability study of the assessment of pressure ulcer risk using the Braden scale and the classification of pressure ulcers in a home care setting.
    Kottner J; Halfens R; Dassen T
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2009 Oct; 46(10):1307-12. PubMed ID: 19406400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Pressure ulcer risk assessment in critical care: interrater reliability and validity studies of the Braden and Waterlow scales and subjective ratings in two intensive care units.
    Kottner J; Dassen T
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2010 Jun; 47(6):671-7. PubMed ID: 20003975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting.
    Chan WS; Pang SM; Kwong EW
    J Clin Nurs; 2009 Jun; 18(11):1565-73. PubMed ID: 19490294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pressure ulcer risk assessment: retrospective analysis of Braden Scale scores in Portuguese hospitalised adult patients.
    Sardo P; Simões C; Alvarelhão J; Costa C; Simões CJ; Figueira J; Simões JL; Amado F; Amaro A; Melo E
    J Clin Nurs; 2015 Nov; 24(21-22):3165-76. PubMed ID: 26316350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale.
    Jun Seongsook RN; Jeong Ihnsook RN; Lee Younghee RN
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2004 Feb; 41(2):199-204. PubMed ID: 14725784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.