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 *

207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28195840)

  • 1. Decision Support for the Capacity Management of Bronchoscopy Devices: Optimizing the Cost-Efficient Mix of Reusable and Single-Use Devices Through Mathematical Modeling.
    Edenharter GM; Gartner D; Pförringer D
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Jun; 124(6):1963-1967. PubMed ID: 28195840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Single-use flexible bronchoscopes compared with reusable bronchoscopes: Positive organizational impact but a costly solution.
    Châteauvieux C; Farah L; Guérot E; Wermert D; Pineau J; Prognon P; Borget I; Martelli N
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2018 Jun; 24(3):528-535. PubMed ID: 29573067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes.
    Mouritsen JM; Ehlers L; Kovaleva J; Ahmad I; El-Boghdadly K
    Anaesthesia; 2020 Apr; 75(4):529-540. PubMed ID: 31701521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How green is my reusable bronchoscope?
    Massart N; Millet C; Beloeil H; Fillatre P; Rouxel C; Daudin M; Coullier N; Marie V; Peguet E; Bardoult P
    Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med; 2024 Oct; 43(5):101420. PubMed ID: 39089450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [A comparative cost analysis of single-use versus reusable fiberoptic bronchoscopes: Is single-use fiberscope worth it?].
    Videau M; Rghioui K; Mottet B; Sainfort A; Lefort I
    Ann Pharm Fr; 2017 Nov; 75(6):473-479. PubMed ID: 28818319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. [Cost analysis comparing single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and conventional reusable fiberoptic flexible scopes for difficult tracheal intubation].
    Aïssou M; Coroir M; Debes C; Camus T; Hadri N; Gutton C; Beaussier M
    Ann Fr Anesth Reanim; 2013 May; 32(5):291-5. PubMed ID: 23561716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective cost evaluation.
    Deprez PH; Horsmans Y; Van Hassel M; Hoang P; Piessevaux H; Geubel A
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):262-5. PubMed ID: 10699768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reuse of single-use medical devices: study shows how to determine cost savings and limits.
    Health Care Cost Reengineering Rep; 1997 Jun; 2(6):93-5. PubMed ID: 10175075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Costs of reusable and disposable aprons in a public teaching hospital].
    Pissinati Pde S; Haddad Mdo C; Rossaneis MÂ; Gil RB; Belei RA
    Rev Esc Enferm USP; 2014 Oct; 48(5):915-21. PubMed ID: 25493497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Apelgren KN; Blank ML; Slomski CA; Hadjis NS
    Surg Endosc; 1994 Jan; 8(1):32-4. PubMed ID: 8153862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cost-effectiveness and safety of reusable tracheal suction tubes.
    Nanta P; Senarat W; Tribuddharat C; Danchaivijitr S
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2005 Dec; 88 Suppl 10():S86-8. PubMed ID: 16850647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimating the true costs of disposable and reusable instruments.
    Mancuso R; Bickham MJ
    AORN J; 1995 Jul; 62(1):39-42, 45, 47-8. PubMed ID: 7574563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Cost and Waste-Savings Comparison Between Single-Use and Reusable Pulse Oximetry Sensors Across US Operating Rooms.
    Stockert EW; Carvalho B; Sun EC
    Anesth Analg; 2024 Jul; 139(1):220-225. PubMed ID: 38195082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy.
    Yang R; Ng S; Nichol M; Laine L
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):266-70. PubMed ID: 10699769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Advantages of disposable endoscopic accessories.
    Petersen BT
    Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am; 2000 Apr; 10(2):341-8. PubMed ID: 10683219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.