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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11446541)

  • 1. Comparison of perceived pain with different immobilization techniques.
    Cross DA; Baskerville J
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2001; 5(3):270-4. PubMed ID: 11446541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization.
    Cordell WH; Hollingsworth JC; Olinger ML; Stroman SJ; Nelson DR
    Ann Emerg Med; 1995 Jul; 26(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7793717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effects of neutral positioning with and without padding on spinal immobilization of healthy subjects.
    Lerner EB; Billittier AJ; Moscati RM
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 1998; 2(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 9709329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of tissue-interface pressure in healthy subjects lying on two trauma splinting devices: The vacuum mattress splint and long spine board.
    Pernik MN; Seidel HH; Blalock RE; Burgess AR; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR; Prasarn ML
    Injury; 2016 Aug; 47(8):1801-5. PubMed ID: 27324323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Backboard versus mattress splint immobilization: a comparison of symptoms generated.
    Chan D; Goldberg RM; Mason J; Chan L
    J Emerg Med; 1996; 14(3):293-8. PubMed ID: 8782022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The occipital and sacral pressures experienced by healthy volunteers under spinal immobilization: a trial of three surfaces.
    Sheerin F; de Frein R
    J Emerg Nurs; 2007 Oct; 33(5):447-50. PubMed ID: 17884474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization.
    Totten VY; Sugarman DB
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 1999; 3(4):347-52. PubMed ID: 10534038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.
    Hemmes B; Poeze M; Brink PR
    J Trauma; 2010 Mar; 68(3):593-8. PubMed ID: 19918198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Changes in physical examination caused by use of spinal immobilization.
    March JA; Ausband SC; Brown LH
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2002; 6(4):421-4. PubMed ID: 12385610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of unconsciousness during spinal immobilization on tissue-interface pressures: A randomized controlled trial comparing a standard rigid spineboard with a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.
    Hemmes B; Brink PR; Poeze M
    Injury; 2014 Nov; 45(11):1741-6. PubMed ID: 24998039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Vacuum mattress or long spine board: which method of spinal stabilisation in trauma patients is more time consuming? A simulation study.
    Ms R; Riffelmann M; Kunze-Szikszay N; Lier M; Schmid O; Haus H; Schneider S; Jf H
    Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med; 2021 Mar; 29(1):46. PubMed ID: 33706791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint.
    Etier BE; Norte GE; Gleason MM; Richter DL; Pugh KF; Thomson KB; Slater LV; Hart JM; Brockmeier SF; Diduch DR
    Orthop J Sports Med; 2017 Dec; 5(12):2325967117744757. PubMed ID: 29318167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Padded vs unpadded spine board for cervical spine immobilization.
    Walton R; DeSalvo JF; Ernst AA; Shahane A
    Acad Emerg Med; 1995 Aug; 2(8):725-8. PubMed ID: 7584752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Tissue-interface pressures on three different support-surfaces for trauma patients.
    Keller BP; Lubbert PH; Keller E; Leenen LP
    Injury; 2005 Aug; 36(8):946-8. PubMed ID: 16023909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The efficacy and comfort of full-body vacuum splints for cervical-spine immobilization.
    Hamilton RS; Pons PT
    J Emerg Med; 1996; 14(5):553-9. PubMed ID: 8933314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization.
    Johnson DR; Hauswald M; Stockhoff C
    Am J Emerg Med; 1996 Jul; 14(4):369-72. PubMed ID: 8768157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of spinal immobilization on healthy volunteers.
    Chan D; Goldberg R; Tascone A; Harmon S; Chan L
    Ann Emerg Med; 1994 Jan; 23(1):48-51. PubMed ID: 8273958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Long backboard versus vacuum mattress splint to immobilize whole spine in trauma victims in the field: a randomized clinical trial.
    Mahshidfar B; Mofidi M; Yari AR; Mehrsorosh S
    Prehosp Disaster Med; 2013 Oct; 28(5):462-5. PubMed ID: 23746392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of prehospital spinal immobilization: a systematic review of randomized trials on healthy subjects.
    Kwan I; Bunn F
    Prehosp Disaster Med; 2005; 20(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 15748015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A numerical study to analyse the risk for pressure ulcer development on a spine board.
    Oomens CW; Zenhorst W; Broek M; Hemmes B; Poeze M; Brink PR; Bader DL
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2013 Aug; 28(7):736-42. PubMed ID: 23953331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.