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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23967394)

  • 1. Is routine replacement of i.v. administration sets required after each change of intermittently administrated antibiotic infusions?
    von Au F; Ryll S; Wegner C; Gessner S; Kramer A
    GMS Hyg Infect Control; 2013; 8(1):Doc08. PubMed ID: 23967394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Changing i.v. administration sets: is 48 versus 24 hours safe for neutropenic patients with cancer?
    deMoissac D; Jensen L
    Oncol Nurs Forum; 1998 Jun; 25(5):907-13. PubMed ID: 9644707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimal timing for intravenous administration set replacement.
    Gillies D; O'Riordan L; Wallen M; Morrison A; Rankin K; Nagy S
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2005 Oct; (4):CD003588. PubMed ID: 16235329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contamination of intravenous infusion fluid: effects of changing administration sets.
    Buxton AE; Highsmith AK; Garner JS; West CM; Stamm WE; Dixon RE; McGowan JE
    Ann Intern Med; 1979 May; 90(5):764-8. PubMed ID: 373560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of 24-hour intravenous tubing set change on the sterility of repackaged fat emulsion in neonates.
    Reiter PD; Robles J; Dowell EB
    Ann Pharmacother; 2004 Oct; 38(10):1603-7. PubMed ID: 15328398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48- vs 72-hour intervals. 72 hours is safe and cost-effective.
    Maki DG; Botticelli JT; LeRoy ML; Thielke TS
    JAMA; 1987 Oct; 258(13):1777-81. PubMed ID: 3114506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Analysis of 72-hour sterility of common pediatric continuous intravenous infusions.
    Piro CC; Davis J; Frelix A; Grisso AG; Sinclair-Pingel J; Willingham H; Wright L; Potts AL
    J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther; 2009 Jan; 14(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 23055888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Routine changing of intravenous administration sets does not reduce colonization or infection in central venous catheters.
    Rickard CM; Lipman J; Courtney M; Siversen R; Daley P
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2004 Aug; 25(8):650-5. PubMed ID: 15357156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. CHANGING INFUSION PRACTICE GENERATES SIGNIFICANT EFFICIENCIES IN NURSING TIME AND RESOURCE USAGE IN PAEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE.
    Sutherland A; Jemmett L; Barber R
    Arch Dis Child; 2016 Sep; 101(9):e2. PubMed ID: 27540202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Antibiotic treatment for prevention of infectious complications in joint replacement].
    Jahoda D; Nyc O; Pokorný D; Landor I; Sosna A
    Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2006 Apr; 73(2):108-14. PubMed ID: 16735008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of microbial contamination of enteral feeding solution between repeated use of administration sets after washing with water and after washing followed by disinfection.
    Oie S; Kamiya A
    J Hosp Infect; 2001 Aug; 48(4):304-7. PubMed ID: 11461132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Optimal frequency of changing intravenous administration sets: is it safe to prolong use beyond 72 hours?
    Raad I; Hanna HA; Awad A; Alrahwan A; Bivins C; Khan A; Richardson D; Umphrey JL; Whimbey E; Mansour G
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2001 Mar; 22(3):136-9. PubMed ID: 11310690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bacterial contamination of ready-to-use 1-L feeding bottles and administration sets in severely compromised intensive care patients.
    Mathus-Vliegen LM; Binnekade JM; de Haan RJ
    Crit Care Med; 2000 Jan; 28(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 10667501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Contamination of intravenous infusion systems--the effect of changing administration sets.
    Jakobsen CJ; Grabe N; Nielsen E; Højbjerg T; Damm M; Lorentzen K; Ersgaard HV; Villadsen J; Heebøl-Holm B; Madsen JI
    J Hosp Infect; 1986 Nov; 8(3):217-23. PubMed ID: 2878025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Endemic rate of fluid contamination and related septicemia in arterial pressure monitoring.
    Maki DG; Hassemer CA
    Am J Med; 1981 Mar; 70(3):733-8. PubMed ID: 7211907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FIVE SELECTIVE AND DIFFERENTIAL MEDIA FOR THE DETECTION AND ENUMERATION OF COAGULASE-POSITIVE STAPHYLOCOCCI IN FOODS.
    CRISLEY FD; PEELER JT; ANGELOTTI R
    Appl Microbiol; 1965 Mar; 13(2):140-56. PubMed ID: 14325870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Compatibility and stability of aplidine, a novel marine-derived depsipeptide antitumor agent, in infusion devices, and its hemolytic and precipitation potential upon i.v. administration.
    Nuijen B; Bouma M; Henrar RE; Manada C; Bult A; Beijnen JH
    Anticancer Drugs; 1999 Nov; 10(10):879-87. PubMed ID: 10630355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of i.v. push administration on β-lactam pharmacodynamics.
    Butterfield-Cowper JM; Burgner K
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2017 May; 74(9):e170-e175. PubMed ID: 28438821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Acinetobacter septicaemia following prolonged intravenous therapy.
    Harvey K; Schuck S
    Med J Aust; 1977 Jul; 2(4):121-4. PubMed ID: 895640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the ActiDes-Blue and CARELA HYDRO-DES technology for the sanitation of contaminated cooling water systems in dental units.
    Kramer A; Lemanski S; Demond K; Assadian O
    GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip; 2012; 7(1):Doc09. PubMed ID: 22558043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.