461 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29420766)
1. Military Medic Performance with Employment of a Commercial Intraosseous Infusion Device: A Randomized, Crossover Study.
Gendron B; Cronin A; Monti J; Brigg A
Mil Med; 2018 May; 183(5-6):e216-e222. PubMed ID: 29420766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of the NIO and T.A.L.O.N Intraosseous Devices as Placed by U.S. Army Conventional Force Combat Medics-A Randomized Crossover Study.
Lange P; Umar M; Walker JD; Riddle M; Mochmer P
Mil Med; 2022 Jul; 187(7-8):e877-e881. PubMed ID: 34327538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study.
Hammer N; Möbius R; Gries A; Hossfeld B; Bechmann I; Bernhard M
PLoS One; 2015; 10(12):e0143726. PubMed ID: 26630579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An observational, prospective study comparing tibial and humeral intraosseous access using the EZ-IO.
Ong MEH; Chan YH; Oh JJ; Ngo AS
Am J Emerg Med; 2009 Jan; 27(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 19041528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Two Intraosseous Devices: The NIO Versus the EZ-IO by Novice Users-A Randomized Cross Over Trial.
Shina A; Baruch EN; Shlaifer A; Shovali A; Levi M; Yosefy O; Segal D; Bader T; Shavit I; Yitzhak A
Prehosp Emerg Care; 2017; 21(3):315-321. PubMed ID: 27870553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of success rate and access time for an adult sternal intraosseous device deployed in the prehospital setting.
Byars DV; Tsuchitani SN; Erwin E; Anglemyer B; Eastman J
Prehosp Disaster Med; 2011 Apr; 26(2):127-9. PubMed ID: 21888733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Randomized Cadaver Study Comparing First-Attempt Success Between Tibial and Humeral Intraosseous Insertions Using NIO Device by Paramedics: A Preliminary Investigation.
Szarpak L; Truszewski Z; Smereka J; Krajewski P; Fudalej M; Adamczyk P; Czyzewski L
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 May; 95(20):e3724. PubMed ID: 27196493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of two mechanical intraosseous infusion devices: a pilot, randomized crossover trial.
Shavit I; Hoffmann Y; Galbraith R; Waisman Y
Resuscitation; 2009 Sep; 80(9):1029-33. PubMed ID: 19586701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. EZ-IO(®) intraosseous device implementation in German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service.
Helm M; Haunstein B; Schlechtriemen T; Ruppert M; Lampl L; Gäßler M
Resuscitation; 2015 Mar; 88():43-7. PubMed ID: 25553609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Intraosseous access EZ-IO in a prehospital emergency service.
Torres F; Galán MD; Alonso Mdel M; Suárez R; Camacho C; Almagro V
J Emerg Nurs; 2013 Sep; 39(5):511-4. PubMed ID: 23099011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Paramedics successfully perform humeral EZ-IO intraosseous access in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.
Wampler D; Schwartz D; Shumaker J; Bolleter S; Beckett R; Manifold C
Am J Emerg Med; 2012 Sep; 30(7):1095-9. PubMed ID: 22030185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of four different intraosseous access devices during simulated pediatric resuscitation. A randomized crossover manikin trial.
Bielski K; Szarpak L; Smereka J; Ladny JR; Leung S; Ruetzler K
Eur J Pediatr; 2017 Jul; 176(7):865-871. PubMed ID: 28500463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Consecutive field trials using two different intraosseous devices.
Frascone RJ; Jensen JP; Kaye K; Salzman JG
Prehosp Emerg Care; 2007; 11(2):164-71. PubMed ID: 17454802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of the pediatric EZ-IO needle by emergency medical services providers.
Frascone RJ; Jensen J; Wewerka SS; Salzman JG
Pediatr Emerg Care; 2009 May; 25(5):329-32. PubMed ID: 19404222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial.
Drozd A; Smereka J; Pruc M; Malysz M; Gasecka A; Sonmez LO; Cyran M; Konge L; Szarpak L
Am J Emerg Med; 2021 Nov; 49():189-194. PubMed ID: 34126564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. "Guidewire Intravenous Catheter Systems Do Not Improve First-Pass Success Rates for Peripheral Access When Placed By Army Combat Medics (68W) in a Pre-hospital Setting." A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial with Crossover Study Design.
Jin LM; Medeck S; Ruley J; Riddle M; Aden J
Mil Med; 2018 Nov; 183(11-12):e730-e734. PubMed ID: 29800299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. EZ-IO(®) intraosseous device implementation in a pre-hospital emergency service: A prospective study and review of the literature.
Santos D; Carron PN; Yersin B; Pasquier M
Resuscitation; 2013 Apr; 84(4):440-5. PubMed ID: 23160104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Intraosseous infusion rates under high pressure: a cadaveric comparison of anatomic sites.
Pasley J; Miller CH; DuBose JJ; Shackelford SA; Fang R; Boswell K; Halcome C; Casey J; Cotter M; Matsuura M; Relph N; Tarmey NT; Stein DM
J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2015 Feb; 78(2):295-9. PubMed ID: 25757113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of two different intraosseous access methods in a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service - a quality assurance study.
Sørgjerd R; Sunde GA; Heltne JK
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med; 2019 Feb; 27(1):15. PubMed ID: 30760297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Intraosseous infusion devices: a comparison for potential use in special operations.
Calkins MD; Fitzgerald G; Bentley TB; Burris D
J Trauma; 2000 Jun; 48(6):1068-74. PubMed ID: 10866253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
