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: 16023909)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Reponse to paper by Keller BPJA, Lambert PHW, Keller E, Leenen LPH. Tissue-interface pressure on three different support-surfaces for trauma patients [Injury 2005; 36(8):946-8].
    Lovell ME
    Injury; 2006 Jul; 37(7):673-4; author reply 674-5. PubMed ID: 16737700
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Interface pressure comparison of healthy premature infants with various neonatal bed surfaces.
    Turnage-Carrier C; McLane KM; Gregurich MA
    Adv Neonatal Care; 2008 Jun; 8(3):176-84. PubMed ID: 18535423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Interface pressure, wound healing, and satisfaction in the evaluation of a non-powered fluid mattress.
    Wells JA; Karr D
    Ostomy Wound Manage; 1998 Feb; 44(2):38-42, 44-6, 48 passim. PubMed ID: 9526420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Tissue interface pressure and estimated subcutaneous pressures of 11 different pressure-reducing support surfaces.
    Thompson-Bishop JY; Mottola CM
    Decubitus; 1992 Mar; 5(2):42-6, 48. PubMed ID: 1558691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interface pressure measurements of support surfaces with subjects in the supine and 45-degree Fowler positions.
    Whittemore R; Bautista C; Smith C; Bruttomesso K
    J ET Nurs; 1993; 20(3):111-5. PubMed ID: 8347757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [Use of devices for spine immobilization for trauma patients at the emergency department: review of the literature].
    Bambi S; Becattini G
    Assist Inferm Ric; 2003; 22(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 12789833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Pressure relief capabilities of the Sof.Care bed and the Clinitron bed.
    Maklebust J; Siggreen MY; Mondoux L
    Ostomy Wound Manage; 1988; 21():32, 36-41, 44. PubMed ID: 3250579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of the spinal board and the vacuum stretcher, spinal stability and interface pressure.
    Lovell ME; Evans JH
    Injury; 1994 Apr; 25(3):179-80. PubMed ID: 8168891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of the effectiveness of two pressure-relieving surfaces: low-air-loss versus static fluid.
    Hardin JB; Cronin SN; Cahill K
    Ostomy Wound Manage; 2000 Sep; 46(9):50-6. PubMed ID: 11189541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Skin pressure measurements on various mattress surfaces in cancer patients.
    Berjian RA; Douglass HO; Holyoke ED; Goodwin PM; Priore RL
    Am J Phys Med; 1983 Oct; 62(5):217-26. PubMed ID: 6624882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Relationship between body weight, body position, support surface, and tissue interface pressure at the sacrum.
    Rondorf-Klym LM; Langemo D
    Decubitus; 1993 Jan; 6(1):22-30. PubMed ID: 8427641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Measurements of interface pressure between body sites and the surfaces of four specialised air mattresses.
    Allen V; Ryan DW; Murray A
    Br J Clin Pract; 1994; 48(3):125-9. PubMed ID: 8031686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Laboratory measurement of the interface pressures applied by active therapy support surfaces: a consensus document.
    Tissue Viability Society
    J Tissue Viability; 2010 Feb; 19(1):2-6. PubMed ID: 20097075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Effect of a Liner on the Dispersion of Sacral Interface Pressures During Spinal Immobilization.
    Nemunaitis G; Roach MJ; Boulet M; Nagy JA; Kaufman B; Mejia M; Hefzy MS
    Assist Technol; 2015; 27(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 26132220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.