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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21960052)

  • 1. Perceptions of cosmesis and function in adults with upper limb prostheses: a systematic literature review.
    Ritchie S; Wiggins S; Sanford A
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2011 Dec; 35(4):332-41. PubMed ID: 21960052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Satisfaction with cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb amputees in the United Kingdom: instrument development and results.
    Cairns N; Murray K; Corney J; McFadyen A
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2014 Dec; 38(6):467-73. PubMed ID: 24327666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Experience of adults with upper-limb difference and their views on sensory feedback for prostheses: a mixed methods study.
    Jabban L; Metcalfe BW; Raines J; Zhang D; Ainsworth B
    J Neuroeng Rehabil; 2022 Jul; 19(1):80. PubMed ID: 35870940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review.
    Smail LC; Neal C; Wilkins C; Packham TL
    Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol; 2021 Nov; 16(8):821-830. PubMed ID: 32189537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. User-relevant factors determining prosthesis choice in persons with major unilateral upper limb defects: A meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results.
    Kerver N; van Twillert S; Maas B; van der Sluis CK
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(6):e0234342. PubMed ID: 32603326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review.
    Carey SL; Lura DJ; Highsmith MJ; ;
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2015; 52(3):247-62. PubMed ID: 26230500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics.
    Biddiss E; Beaton D; Chau T
    Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol; 2007 Nov; 2(6):346-57. PubMed ID: 19263565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review.
    Chadwell A; Diment L; Micó-Amigo M; Morgado Ramírez DZ; Dickinson A; Granat M; Kenney L; Kheng S; Sobuh M; Ssekitoleko R; Worsley P
    J Neuroeng Rehabil; 2020 Jul; 17(1):93. PubMed ID: 32665020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Rethinking the foam cosmesis for people with lower limb absence.
    Cairns N; Corney J; Murray K; Moore-Millar K; Hatcher GD; Zahedi S; Bradbury R; McCarthy J
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2018 Apr; 42(2):223-227. PubMed ID: 28521576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment.
    Biddiss E; Chau T
    Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2007 Dec; 86(12):977-87. PubMed ID: 18090439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A review of user needs to drive the development of lower limb prostheses.
    Manz S; Valette R; Damonte F; Avanci Gaudio L; Gonzalez-Vargas J; Sartori M; Dosen S; Rietman J
    J Neuroeng Rehabil; 2022 Nov; 19(1):119. PubMed ID: 36335345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A custom, functional and lifelike passive prosthetic hand for infants and small toddlers: Clinical note.
    Eshraghi A; Yoo J; Klein J; Mckenzie I; Sebaldt G; Leineweber M; Artero L; Ramdial S; Andrysek J
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2020 Jun; 44(3):180-184. PubMed ID: 32301382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Feminine identity and functional benefits are key factors in women's decision making about upper limb prostheses: a case series.
    Resnik L; Klinger S; Gill A; Ekerholm Biester S
    Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol; 2019 Feb; 14(2):194-208. PubMed ID: 29741966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A National Survey of Prosthesis Use in Veterans with Major Upper Limb Amputation: Comparisons by Gender.
    Resnik LJ; Borgia ML; Clark MA
    PM R; 2020 Nov; 12(11):1086-1098. PubMed ID: 32103626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prosthesis satisfaction in a national sample of Veterans with upper limb amputation.
    Resnik L; Borgia M; Heinemann AW; Clark MA
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2020 Apr; 44(2):81-91. PubMed ID: 31960734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A review of upper limb pediatric prostheses and perspectives on future advancements.
    Battraw MA; Fitzgerald J; Joiner WM; James MA; Bagley AM; Schofield JS
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2022 Jun; 46(3):267-273. PubMed ID: 35085179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Design and development of a novel 3D-printed non-metallic self-locking prosthetic arm for a forequarter amputation.
    Binedell T; Meng E; Subburaj K
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2021 Feb; 45(1):94-99. PubMed ID: 33834751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Movement quality of conventional prostheses and the DEKA Arm during everyday tasks.
    Cowley J; Resnik L; Wilken J; Smurr Walters L; Gates D
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2017 Feb; 41(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 26932980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years.
    Biddiss EA; Chau TT
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2007 Sep; 31(3):236-57. PubMed ID: 17979010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sex and gender differences in upper extremity prosthesis rejection: A review of literature.
    Henderson E; Rehani M; Hebert JS
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2024 Jun; 48(3):300-314. PubMed ID: 38579197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.