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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1132211)

  • 1. Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses.
    Hartman JT; Palumbo F; Hill BJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1975; (109):97-102. PubMed ID: 1132211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Do cervical collars and cervicothoracic orthoses effectively stabilize the injured cervical spine? A biomechanical investigation.
    Ivancic PC
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Jun; 38(13):E767-74. PubMed ID: 23486409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses.
    Bell KM; Frazier EC; Shively CM; Hartman RA; Ulibarri JC; Lee JY; Kang JD; Donaldson WF
    Spine J; 2009 Mar; 9(3):225-31. PubMed ID: 18504164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects.
    Johnson RM; Hart DL; Simmons EF; Ramsby GR; Southwick WO
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 1977 Apr; 59(3):332-9. PubMed ID: 849944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. A comparison study.
    Askins V; Eismont FJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1997 Jun; 22(11):1193-8. PubMed ID: 9201855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of orthoses on three-dimensional load-displacement properties of the cervical spine.
    Ivancic PC
    Eur Spine J; 2013 Jan; 22(1):169-77. PubMed ID: 23090094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of the Nebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilization collar, with three standard models.
    Alberts LR; Mahoney CR; Neff JR
    J Orthop Trauma; 1998 Aug; 12(6):425-30. PubMed ID: 9715451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Emergency cervical-spine immobilization.
    Chandler DR; Nemejc C; Adkins RH; Waters RL
    Ann Emerg Med; 1992 Oct; 21(10):1185-8. PubMed ID: 1416294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The ability of external immobilizers to restrict movement of the cervical spine: a systematic review.
    Holla M; Huisman JM; Verdonschot N; Goosen J; Hosman AJ; Hannink G
    Eur Spine J; 2016 Jul; 25(7):2023-36. PubMed ID: 27032640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The yale cervical orthosis: an evaluation of its effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects and a comparison with other cervical orthoses.
    Johnson RM; Hart DL; Owen JR; Lerner E; Chapin W; Zeleznik R
    Phys Ther; 1978 Jul; 58(7):865-71. PubMed ID: 662928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Minerva cervicothoracic orthosis.
    Sharpe KP; Rao S; Ziogas A
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1995 Jul; 20(13):1475-9. PubMed ID: 8623066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses. An in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by several widely used models.
    Sandler AJ; Dvorak J; Humke T; Grob D; Daniels W
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1996 Jul; 21(14):1624-9. PubMed ID: 8839463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cervical orthoses effect on cervical spine motion: roentgenographic and goniometric method of study.
    Fisher SV; Bowar JF; Awad EA; Gullickson G
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1977 Mar; 58(3):109-15. PubMed ID: 843201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Compatibility of cervical spine braces with MR imaging: a study of nine nonferrous devices.
    Clayman DA; Murakami ME; Vines FS
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 1990; 11(2):385-90. PubMed ID: 2107723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living.
    Miller CP; Bible JE; Jegede KA; Whang PG; Grauer JN
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jun; 35(13):1271-8. PubMed ID: 20512025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of cervical orthoses on neck biomechanical responses during transitioning from supine to upright.
    Ivancic PC
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2013 Mar; 28(3):239-45. PubMed ID: 23434342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cervical collars are insufficient for immobilizing an unstable cervical spine injury.
    Horodyski M; DiPaola CP; Conrad BP; Rechtine GR
    J Emerg Med; 2011 Nov; 41(5):513-9. PubMed ID: 21397431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effectiveness of Adjustable Cervical Orthoses and Modular Cervical Thoracic Orthoses in Restricting Neck Motion: A Comparative In vivo Biomechanical Study.
    Gao F
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Oct; 40(19):E1046-51. PubMed ID: 26076435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Study of low-temperature thermoplastic modified custom-molded cervical orthosis for cervical spine fixation.
    Lau YC; Chang RK; Cheng YC; Chang GL; Chou YL; Leong CP; Wong MK
    J Spinal Disord; 1994 Dec; 7(6):504-9. PubMed ID: 7873848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Efficacy of Thoracolumbar Bracing in Spinal Immobilization: Precise Assessment of Gross, Intersegmental, and Segmental Spinal Motion Restriction by a 3D Kinematic System.
    Lang G; Hirschmüller A; Patermann S; Eichelberger P; Strohm P; Baur H; Südkamp NP; Herget GW
    World Neurosurg; 2018 Aug; 116():e128-e146. PubMed ID: 29729467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.