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 *

439 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22492185)

  • 1. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits.
    McGain F; McAlister S; McGavin A; Story D
    Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1073-80. PubMed ID: 22492185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways.
    Eckelman M; Mosher M; Gonzalez A; Sherman J
    Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1067-72. PubMed ID: 22492190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment.
    McGain F; Story D; Lim T; McAlister S
    Br J Anaesth; 2017 Jun; 118(6):862-869. PubMed ID: 28505289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of costs for reusable and disposable syringes.
    Yimyam S; Srisuphan W; Plianpadung S; Senaratana W
    J Med Assoc Thai; 1995 Jul; 78 Suppl 1():S26-8. PubMed ID: 7666023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement: Comparing Reusable and Single-Use Disposable Laryngoscopes.
    Sherman JD; Raibley LA; Eckelman MJ
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Aug; 127(2):434-443. PubMed ID: 29324492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays.
    McGain F; McAlister S; McGavin A; Story D
    Anaesth Intensive Care; 2010 May; 38(3):538-44. PubMed ID: 20514965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012.
    Overcash M
    Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1055-66. PubMed ID: 22492184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Adler S; Scherrer M; Rückauer KD; Daschner FD
    Surg Endosc; 2005 Feb; 19(2):268-72. PubMed ID: 15580444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps. A prospective cost analysis in the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of the Dijon University Hospital].
    Lejeune C; Prost P; Michiels C; Roullaud-Guenfoudi MP; Phelip JM; Martin L; Rassiat E; Faivre J
    Gastroenterol Clin Biol; 2001; 25(6-7):669-73. PubMed ID: 11673734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A cost analysis of reusable and disposable flexible optical scopes for intubation.
    Tvede MF; Kristensen MS; Nyhus-Andreasen M
    Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 2012 May; 56(5):577-84. PubMed ID: 22338623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula.
    Donahue LM; Hilton S; Bell SG; Williams BC; Keoleian GA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):225.e1-225.e7. PubMed ID: 32067971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings.
    Horattas MC; Trupiano J; Hopkins S; Pasini D; Martino C; Murty A
    Am J Infect Control; 2001 Feb; 29(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 11172316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing the environmental impact of reusable and disposable dental examination kits: a life cycle assessment approach.
    Byrne D; Saget S; Davidson A; Haneef H; Abdeldaim T; Almudahkah A; Basquille N; Bergin AM; Prida J; Lyne A; Duane B
    Br Dent J; 2022 Aug; 233(4):317-325. PubMed ID: 36028697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Does Reusable Instrumentation for Four-Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair Offer Decreased Waste Disposal Costs and Lower Waste-Related Carbon Emissions?
    Pearson Z; Hung V; Agarwal A; Stehlik K; Harris A; Ahiarakwe U; Best MJ
    J Am Acad Orthop Surg; 2024 Aug; 32(15):705-711. PubMed ID: 38861714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Use of maximal sterile barriers during central venous catheter insertion: clinical and economic outcomes.
    Hu KK; Veenstra DL; Lipsky BA; Saint S
    Clin Infect Dis; 2004 Nov; 39(10):1441-5. PubMed ID: 15546079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reducing medical waste.
    Conrardy J; Hillanbrand M; Myers S; Nussbaum GF
    AORN J; 2010 Jun; 91(6):711-21. PubMed ID: 20510944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Steam sterilisation's energy and water footprint.
    McGain F; Moore G; Black J
    Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 27075773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Medical male circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention in Uganda - the cost of disposable versus re-usable circumcision kits.
    Kuznik A; Lamorde M; Sekavuga DB; Picho B; Coutinho A
    Trop Doct; 2012 Jan; 42(1):5-7. PubMed ID: 22223725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Disposable vs reusable laryngeal mask airway: a cost-minimization analysis].
    Soulias M; Martin L; Garnier N; Juniot A; Aho LS; Freysz M
    Ann Fr Anesth Reanim; 2006 Aug; 25(8):811-4. PubMed ID: 16603333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reprocessing of reusable medical devices.
    Malchesky PS; Chamberlain VC; Scott-Conner C; Salis B; Wallace C
    ASAIO J; 1995; 41(2):146-51. PubMed ID: 7640417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.