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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27134361)

  • 1. Effect of pelvic forward tilt on low back compressive and shear forces during a manual lifting task.
    Hayashi S; Katsuhira J; Matsudaira K; Maruyama H
    J Phys Ther Sci; 2016 Mar; 28(3):802-6. PubMed ID: 27134361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of mental processing on low back load while lifting an object.
    Katsuhira J; Matsudaira K; Iwakiri K; Kimura Y; Ohashi T; Ono R; Sugita S; Fukuda K; Abe S; Maruyama H
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Jun; 38(13):E832-9. PubMed ID: 23722573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads.
    Bazrgari B; Shirazi-Adl A; Arjmand N
    Eur Spine J; 2007 May; 16(5):687-99. PubMed ID: 17103232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Stoop or squat: a review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique.
    van Dieën JH; Hoozemans MJ; Toussaint HM
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 1999 Dec; 14(10):685-96. PubMed ID: 10545622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Foot positioning instruction, initial vertical load position and lifting technique: effects on low back loading.
    Kingma I; Bosch T; Bruins L; van Dieën JH
    Ergonomics; 2004 Oct; 47(13):1365-85. PubMed ID: 15513714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles.
    von Arx M; Liechti M; Connolly L; Bangerter C; Meier ML; Schmid S
    Front Bioeng Biotechnol; 2021; 9():769117. PubMed ID: 34805121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ratings of perceived thigh and back exertion in forest workers during repetitive lifting using squat and stoop techniques.
    Hagen KB; Harms-Ringdahl K
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1994 Nov; 19(22):2511-7. PubMed ID: 7855674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Can low back loading during lifting be reduced by placing one leg beside the object to be lifted?
    Kingma I; Faber GS; Bakker AJ; van Dieën JH
    Phys Ther; 2006 Aug; 86(8):1091-105. PubMed ID: 16879043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Can postural modification reduce kinetic and kinematic loading during the bowing postures of Islamic prayer?
    AbouHassan J; Milosavljevic S; Carman A
    Ergonomics; 2010 Dec; 53(12):1446-54. PubMed ID: 21108081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vivo loads on a vertebral body replacement during different lifting techniques.
    Dreischarf M; Rohlmann A; Graichen F; Bergmann G; Schmidt H
    J Biomech; 2016 Apr; 49(6):890-895. PubMed ID: 26603872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Supporting the upper body with the hand on the thigh reduces back loading during lifting.
    Kingma I; Faber GS; van Dieën JH
    J Biomech; 2016 Apr; 49(6):881-889. PubMed ID: 26475223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of control strategies for an active back-support exoskeleton on spine loading and kinematics during lifting.
    Koopman AS; Toxiri S; Power V; Kingma I; van Dieën JH; Ortiz J; de Looze MP
    J Biomech; 2019 Jun; 91():14-22. PubMed ID: 31122661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mathematical and empirical proof of principle for an on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD).
    Abdoli-Eramaki M; Stevenson JM; Reid SA; Bryant TJ
    J Biomech; 2007; 40(8):1694-700. PubMed ID: 17466313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Exploring lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics for evidence that lifting technique is associated with LBP.
    Saraceni N; Campbell A; Kent P; Ng L; Straker L; O'Sullivan P
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(7):e0254241. PubMed ID: 34288926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Stoop-Squat-Index: a simple but powerful measure for quantifying whole-body lifting behavior.
    Schmid S
    Arch Physiother; 2022 Apr; 12(1):8. PubMed ID: 35449120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of lifting height and load mass on low back loading.
    Hoozemans MJ; Kingma I; de Vries WH; van Dieën JH
    Ergonomics; 2008 Jul; 51(7):1053-63. PubMed ID: 18568964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Maximum acceptable weight of lift reflects peak lumbosacral extension moments in a functional capacity evaluation test using free style, stoop and squat lifting.
    Kuijer PP; van Oostrom SH; Duijzer K; van Dieën JH
    Ergonomics; 2012; 55(3):343-9. PubMed ID: 22409171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body.
    Faber GS; Kingma I; Bakker AJ; van Dieën JH
    J Biomech; 2009 Jan; 42(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 19084840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Conventional video recordings dependably quantify whole-body lifting strategy using the Stoop-Squat-Index: A methods comparison against motion capture and a reliability study.
    Bangerter C; Faude O; Eichelberger P; Schwarzentrub A; Girardin M; Busch A; Hasler CC; Schmid S
    J Biomech; 2024 Feb; 164():111975. PubMed ID: 38320342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Biomechanics of changes in lumbar posture in static lifting.
    Arjmand N; Shirazi-Adl A
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Dec; 30(23):2637-48. PubMed ID: 16319750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.