254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12829978)
1. Evaluation study of the properties of two adhesive foam dressings.
Viamontes L; Jones AM
Br J Nurs; 2003 Jun; 12(11 Suppl):S43-4, S46-9. PubMed ID: 12829978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An evaluation of an adhesive hydrocellular foam dressing and a self-adherent soft silicone foam dressing in a nursing home setting.
Viamontes L; Temple D; Wytall D; Walker A
Ostomy Wound Manage; 2003 Aug; 49(8):48-52, 54-6, 58. PubMed ID: 14631663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Use of wound dressings with soft silicone adhesive technology.
Morris C; Emsley P; Marland E; Meuleneire F; White R
Paediatr Nurs; 2009 Apr; 21(3):38-43. PubMed ID: 19397129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical effectiveness of a silicone foam dressing for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in critically ill patients: Border II Trial.
Santamaria N; Gerdtz M; Liu W; Rakis S; Sage S; Ng AW; Tudor H; McCann J; Vassiliou T; Morrow F; Smith K; Knott J; Liew D
J Wound Care; 2015 Aug; 24(8):340-5. PubMed ID: 26562376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An evaluation of a silicone adhesive shaped heel dressing.
Hampton S
Br J Nurs; 2010 Mar 25-Apr 7; 19(6):S30-3. PubMed ID: 20335927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives.
Waring M; Bielfeldt S; Mätzold K; Wilhelm KP; Butcher M
J Wound Care; 2011 Sep; 20(9):412, 414, 416-22. PubMed ID: 22068140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A study to compare a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing with a self-adherent polymer dressing in stage II pressure ulcers.
Maume S; Van De Looverbosch D; Heyman H; Romanelli M; Ciangherotti A; Charpin S
Ostomy Wound Manage; 2003 Sep; 49(9):44-51. PubMed ID: 14581709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparing a foam composite to a hydrocellular foam dressing in the management of venous leg ulcers: a controlled clinical study.
Vanscheidt W; Sibbald RG; Eager CA
Ostomy Wound Manage; 2004 Nov; 50(11):42-55. PubMed ID: 15545697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of adhesive dressings on the stratum corneum of the skin.
Dykes PJ; Heggie R; Hill SA
J Wound Care; 2001 Feb; 10(2):7-10. PubMed ID: 12964220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Healing rate of hospital-acquired skin tears using adhesive silicone foam versus meshed silicone interface dressings: A prospective, randomized, non-inferiority pilot study.
Fulbrook P; Miles SJ; Williams DM
Int J Nurs Pract; 2024 Jun; 30(3):e13229. PubMed ID: 38123157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mepitel: a non-adherent wound dressing with Safetac technology.
White R; Morris C
Br J Nurs; 2009 Jan 8-21; 18(1):58-64. PubMed ID: 19127235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A multicentre clinical evaluation of Cuticell Contact silicone wound contact layer in daily practice.
Suess-Burghart A; Zomer K; Schwanke D
Br J Community Nurs; 2015 Jun; Suppl Community Wound Care():S35-6, S38-41. PubMed ID: 26052993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Comparison among several foam dressings in the properties of water-absorption, water-locking and air permeability].
Ge TC; Xing N; Chen J; Zhou JJ; Su GL; Shi JW; Zheng YS
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi; 2012 Oct; 28(5):349-52. PubMed ID: 23290760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Removal of adhesive wound dressing and its effects on the stratum corneum of the skin: comparison of eight different adhesive wound dressings.
Matsumura H; Imai R; Ahmatjan N; Ida Y; Gondo M; Shibata D; Wanatabe K
Int Wound J; 2014 Feb; 11(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 22883604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A model for quantitative evaluation of skin damage at adhesive wound dressing removal.
Matsumura H; Ahmatjan N; Ida Y; Imai R; Wanatabe K
Int Wound J; 2013 Jun; 10(3):291-4. PubMed ID: 22533468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biophysical effects of repetitive removal of adhesive dressings on peri-ulcer skin.
Zillmer R; Agren MS; Gottrup F; Karlsmark T
J Wound Care; 2006 May; 15(5):187-91. PubMed ID: 16711170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Use of ultrasound to characterise the fluid-handling characteristics of four foam dressings.
Young S; Bielby A; Milne J
J Wound Care; 2007 Nov; 16(10):425-8, 430-1. PubMed ID: 18065018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An observational evaluation of a new foam adhesive dressing.
Merlin-Manton E; Greenwood M; Linthwaite A
Br J Nurs; 2015 Aug 13-Sep 19; 24(15):S21-2, S24-7. PubMed ID: 26266560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Analgesic efficacy of an ibuprofen-releasing foam dressing compared with local best practice for painful exuding wounds.
Arapoglou V; Katsenis K; Syrigos KN; Dimakakos EP; Zakopoulou N; Gjødsbøl K; Glynn C; Schäfer E; Petersen B; Tsoutos D
J Wound Care; 2011 Jul; 20(7):319-20, 322-5. PubMed ID: 21841720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality improvement evaluation of postoperative wound dressings in orthopaedic patients.
Pickles S; McAllister E; McCullagh G; Nieroba TJ
Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs; 2022 May; 45():100922. PubMed ID: 35227950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
