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 *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31375827)

  • 1. UK safety-engineered device use: changes since the 2013 sharps regulations.
    Grimmond T
    Occup Med (Lond); 2019 Aug; 69(5):352-358. PubMed ID: 31375827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.
    Dulon M; Stranzinger J; Wendeler D; Nienhaus A
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020 Nov; 17(23):. PubMed ID: 33255337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Needlestick prevention devices: data from hospital surveillance in Piedmont, Italy-comprehensive analysis on needlestick injuries between healthcare workers after the introduction of safety devices.
    Ottino MC; Argentero A; Argentero PA; Garzaro G; Zotti CM
    BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e030576. PubMed ID: 31748292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Non-Safety and Safety Device Sharp Injuries-Risk of Incidents, SEDs Availability, Attitudes and Perceptions of Nurses According to Cross-Sectional Survey in Poland.
    Garus-Pakowska A; Górajski M; Sakowski P
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Sep; 19(18):. PubMed ID: 36141587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Sharp truth: health care workers remain at risk of bloodborne infection.
    Rice BD; Tomkins SE; Ncube FM
    Occup Med (Lond); 2015 Apr; 65(3):210-4. PubMed ID: 25663385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Do safety engineered devices reduce needlestick injuries?
    Schuurmans J; Lutgens SP; Groen L; Schneeberger PM
    J Hosp Infect; 2018 Sep; 100(1):99-104. PubMed ID: 29738783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A review of sharps injuries and preventative strategies.
    Trim JC; Elliott TS
    J Hosp Infect; 2003 Apr; 53(4):237-42. PubMed ID: 12660120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model.
    Hanmore E; Maclaine G; Garin F; Alonso A; Leroy N; Ruff L
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2013 Nov; 13():489. PubMed ID: 24274747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Conventional and sharp safety devices in 6 hospitals in British Columbia, Canada.
    Stringer B; Astrakianakis G; Haines T; Kamsteeg K; Danyluk Q; Tang T; Kaboli F; Ciconte R
    Am J Infect Control; 2011 Nov; 39(9):738-45. PubMed ID: 21696858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reducing needlestick injuries through safety-engineered devices: results of a Japanese multi-centre study.
    Fukuda H; Yamanaka N
    J Hosp Infect; 2016 Feb; 92(2):147-53. PubMed ID: 26601603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Chinks in the armor: percutaneous injuries from hollow bore safety-engineered sharps devices.
    Black L
    Am J Infect Control; 2013 May; 41(5):427-32. PubMed ID: 23044172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sharps injuries among employees of acute care hospitals in Massachusetts, 2002-2007.
    Laramie AK; Pun VC; Fang SC; Kriebel D; Davis L
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 32(6):538-44. PubMed ID: 21558765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel.
    Lavoie MC; Verbeek JH; Pahwa M
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2014 Mar; (3):CD009740. PubMed ID: 24610008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: results of a French multicenter study.
    Tosini W; Ciotti C; Goyer F; Lolom I; L'Hériteau F; Abiteboul D; Pellissier G; Bouvet E
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2010 Apr; 31(4):402-7. PubMed ID: 20175681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Safety-Engineered Devices.
    Fukuda H; Moriwaki K
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 37(9):1012-21. PubMed ID: 27226284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sharps injuries in UK health care: a review of injury rates, viral transmission and potential efficacy of safety devices.
    Elder A; Paterson C
    Occup Med (Lond); 2006 Dec; 56(8):566-74. PubMed ID: 17065314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The impact of U.S. policies to protect healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens: the critical role of safety-engineered devices.
    Jagger J; Perry J; Gomaa A; Phillips EK
    J Infect Public Health; 2008; 1(2):62-71. PubMed ID: 20701847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing non-safety with safety device sharps injury incidence data from two different occupational surveillance systems.
    Mitchell AH; Parker GB; Kanamori H; Rutala WA; Weber DJ
    J Hosp Infect; 2017 Jun; 96(2):195-198. PubMed ID: 28314636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating sharps safety devices: meeting OSHA's intent. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
    Pugliese G; Germanson TP; Bartley J; Luca J; Lamerato L; Cox J; Jagger J
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2001 Jul; 22(7):456-8. PubMed ID: 11583216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Causes of needlestick injuries in three healthcare settings: analysis of accident notifications registered six months after the implementation of EU Directive 2010/32/EU in Germany.
    Dulon M; Lisiak B; Wendeler D; Nienhaus A
    J Hosp Infect; 2017 Mar; 95(3):306-311. PubMed ID: 28034473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.