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 *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19918198)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Cytokine IL1α and lactate as markers for tissue damage in spineboard immobilisation. A prospective, randomised open-label crossover trial.
    Hemmes B; de Wert LA; Brink PRG; Oomens CWJ; Bader DL; Poeze M
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2017 Nov; 75():82-88. PubMed ID: 28704681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A New Craniothoracic Mattress for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine in Critical Care Patients.
    Holla M; Driessen M; Eggen TGE; Daanen RA; Hosman AJF; Verdonschot N; Hannink G
    J Trauma Nurs; 2017; 24(4):261-269. PubMed ID: 28692625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of spineboard and headblocks on the image quality of head CT scans.
    Hemmes B; Jeukens CR; Al-Haidari A; Hofman PA; Vd Linden ES; Brink PR; Poeze M
    Emerg Radiol; 2016 Jun; 23(3):263-8. PubMed ID: 27091739
    [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 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Interface pressure at different degrees of backrest elevation with various types of pressure-redistribution surfaces.
    Lippoldt J; Pernicka E; Staudinger T
    Am J Crit Care; 2014 Mar; 23(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 24585160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quantification of pressure relief using interface pressure and tissue perfusion in alternating pressure air mattresses.
    Rithalia SV; Gonsalkorale M
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2000 Oct; 81(10):1364-9. PubMed ID: 11030502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Revolutionary advances in enhancing patient comfort on patients transported on a backboard.
    Edlich RF; Mason SS; Vissers RJ; Gubler KD; Thacker JG; Pharr P; Anderson M; Long WB
    Am J Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 29(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 20825784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.