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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23151034)

  • 1. The tuning fork and the at-risk foot.
    Hitman GA
    Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1477. PubMed ID: 23151034
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An alternative to a 10-g monofilament or tuning fork? Two new, simple, easy-to-use screening tests for determining foot ulcer risk in people with diabetes.
    Baker N
    Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1477-9. PubMed ID: 22686252
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of a new device in the assessment of peripheral sensory neuropathy in diabetes.
    Bracewell N; Game F; Jeffcoate W; Scammell BE
    Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1553-5. PubMed ID: 22672257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility.
    Miranda-Palma B; Sosenko JM; Bowker JH; Mizel MS; Boulton AJ
    Diabetes Res Clin Pract; 2005 Oct; 70(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 16126117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison between monofilament, tuning fork and vibration perception tests for screening patients at risk of foot complication.
    Gin H; Rigalleau V; Baillet L; Rabemanantsoa C
    Diabetes Metab; 2002 Dec; 28(6 Pt 1):457-61. PubMed ID: 12522325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Vibration perception threshold: are multiple sites of testing superior to single site testing on diabetic foot examination?
    Armstrong DG; Hussain SK; Middleton J; Peters EJ; Wunderlich RP; Lavery LA
    Ostomy Wound Manage; 1998 May; 44(5):70-4, 76. PubMed ID: 9697548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quantitative assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy with use of the clanging tuning fork test.
    Oyer DS; Saxon D; Shah A
    Endocr Pract; 2007; 13(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 17360294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The conventional tuning fork as a quantitative tool for vibration threshold.
    Alanazy MH; Alfurayh NA; Almweisheer SN; Aljafen BN; Muayqil T
    Muscle Nerve; 2018 Jan; 57(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 28466970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An assessment of vibration threshold using a biothesiometer compared to a C128-Hz tuning fork.
    Temlett JA
    J Clin Neurosci; 2009 Nov; 16(11):1435-8. PubMed ID: 19695882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Utility of vibration sense testing for use in developing countries: comparison of extinction time on the tuning fork to vibration thresholds on the Vibratron II.
    London L; Thompson ML; Capper W; Myers JE
    Neurotoxicology; 2000 Oct; 21(5):743-52. PubMed ID: 11130278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The tactile circumferential discriminator: an instrument for detecting patients at risk of foot ulceration.
    Rodriguez M; Trinajstic E; Munoz P
    Diabetes Care; 1997 Nov; 20(11):1799. PubMed ID: 9353629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Foot screening technique in a diabetic population.
    Shin JB; Seong YJ; Lee HJ; Kim SH; Park JR
    J Korean Med Sci; 2000 Feb; 15(1):78-82. PubMed ID: 10719814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The clinical examination of the diabetic foot in daily practise.
    de Heus-van Putten MA; Schaper NC; Bakker K
    Diabet Med; 1996; 13 Suppl 1():S55-7. PubMed ID: 8741832
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effectiveness of Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination for diabetic peripheral neuropathy screening.
    Kamei N; Yamane K; Nakanishi S; Yamashita Y; Tamura T; Ohshita K; Watanabe H; Fujikawa R; Okubo M; Kohno N
    J Diabetes Complications; 2005; 19(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 15642490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mobile phone generated vibrations used to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
    May JD; Morris MWJ
    Foot Ankle Surg; 2017 Dec; 23(4):281-284. PubMed ID: 29202988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Monofilament test in diabetic neuropathy].
    Valkonen O; Erkinjuntti M; Falck B; Rönnemaa T
    Duodecim; 2000; 116(19):2119-25. PubMed ID: 12017733
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Possible sources of discrepancies in the use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Impact on prevalence of insensate foot and workload requirements.
    McGill M; Molyneaux L; Spencer R; Heng LF; Yue DK
    Diabetes Care; 1999 Apr; 22(4):598-602. PubMed ID: 10189538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Isolated use of vibration perception thresholds and semmes-weinstein monofilament in diagnosing diabetic polyneuropathy: "the North Catalonia diabetes study".
    Jurado J; Ybarra J; Pou JM
    Nurs Clin North Am; 2007 Mar; 42(1):59-66. PubMed ID: 17270590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Rydel-Seiffer fork revisited: Beyond a simple case of black and white.
    Panosyan FB; Mountain JM; Reilly MM; Shy ME; Herrmann DN
    Neurology; 2016 Aug; 87(7):738-40. PubMed ID: 27412138
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A pocket-sized disposable device for testing the integrity of sensation in the outpatient setting.
    Bowling FL; Abbott CA; Harris WE; Atanasov S; Malik RA; Boulton AJ
    Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1550-2. PubMed ID: 22672290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.