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: 29752163)

  • 1. A comparison of comfort assessment of NECKLITE vs. NeXsplint cervical collar. Pilot data.
    Ladny M; Szarpak L; Smereka J; Ladny JR
    Am J Emerg Med; 2018 Nov; 36(11):2127-2128. PubMed ID: 29752163
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of the Nebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilization collar, with three standard models.
    Alberts LR; Mahoney CR; Neff JR
    J Orthop Trauma; 1998 Aug; 12(6):425-30. PubMed ID: 9715451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How effective is the Newport/Aspen collar? A prospective radiographic evaluation in healthy adult volunteers.
    Hughes SJ
    J Trauma; 1998 Aug; 45(2):374-8. PubMed ID: 9715199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during the application and removal of cervical immobilization collars.
    Prasarn ML; Conrad B; Del Rossi G; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR
    J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2012 Jun; 72(6):1609-13. PubMed ID: 22695429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Value of a rigid collar in addition to head blocks: a proof of principle study.
    Holla M
    Emerg Med J; 2012 Feb; 29(2):104-7. PubMed ID: 21335583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Motion within the unstable cervical spine during patient maneuvering: the neck pivot-shift phenomenon.
    Lador R; Ben-Galim P; Hipp JA
    J Trauma; 2011 Jan; 70(1):247-50; discussion 250-1. PubMed ID: 21217496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of the effectiveness of different cervical immobilization collars.
    McCabe JB; Nolan DJ
    Ann Emerg Med; 1986 Jan; 15(1):50-3. PubMed ID: 3942357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses.
    Bell KM; Frazier EC; Shively CM; Hartman RA; Ulibarri JC; Lee JY; Kang JD; Donaldson WF
    Spine J; 2009 Mar; 9(3):225-31. PubMed ID: 18504164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living.
    Miller CP; Bible JE; Jegede KA; Whang PG; Grauer JN
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jun; 35(13):1271-8. PubMed ID: 20512025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Cervical collars: a clinical and biomechanical study].
    Bruns W; Von Salis-Soglio G; Plitz W
    Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 2004; 142(4):421-7. PubMed ID: 15346303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effectiveness of Adjustable Cervical Orthoses and Modular Cervical Thoracic Orthoses in Restricting Neck Motion: A Comparative In vivo Biomechanical Study.
    Gao F
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Oct; 40(19):E1046-51. PubMed ID: 26076435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The 'Necksafe' head articulation control system: a novel cervical immobilisation device.
    Sparke A; Torlei K; Voss S; Page M; Benger J; Matthews E; Hillman M; Hart D; McLaughlin E; Carter J; Harris N
    Emerg Med J; 2015 Jul; 32(7):564-70. PubMed ID: 25092798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Padded vs unpadded spine board for cervical spine immobilization.
    Walton R; DeSalvo JF; Ernst AA; Shahane A
    Acad Emerg Med; 1995 Aug; 2(8):725-8. PubMed ID: 7584752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals.
    Schneider AM; Hipp JA; Nguyen L; Reitman CA
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Jan; 32(1):E1-6. PubMed ID: 17202874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of neck movement in the soft cervical collar and rigid cervical brace in healthy subjects.
    Whitcroft KL; Massouh L; Amirfeyz R; Bannister GC
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2011 Feb; 34(2):119-22. PubMed ID: 21334544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses.
    Zhang S; Wortley M; Clowers K; Krusenklaus JH
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2005 Mar; 20(3):264-9. PubMed ID: 15698698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mastication causing segmental spinal motion in common cervical orthoses.
    Chin KR; Auerbach JD; Adams SB; Sodl JF; Riew KD
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Feb; 31(4):430-4. PubMed ID: 16481953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comfort and acceptability of various immobilization positions using a shoulder external rotation and abduction brace.
    Hatta T; Yamamoto N; Sano H; Itoi E
    J Orthop Sci; 2017 Mar; 22(2):285-288. PubMed ID: 27863887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The management and prevention of rigid cervical collar complications.
    Webber-Jones JE; Thomas CA; Bordeaux RE
    Orthop Nurs; 2002; 21(4):19-25; quiz 25-7. PubMed ID: 12224182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of two new immobilization collars.
    Rosen PB; McSwain NE; Arata M; Stahl S; Mercer D
    Ann Emerg Med; 1992 Oct; 21(10):1189-95. PubMed ID: 1416295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.