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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37057224)

  • 1. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Types of Commercial Endotracheal Tube Holders, with the Conventional Method in a Manikin Model.
    Nasr Isfahani M; Abootalebi A; Ghaznavi K; Kamali Dolatabadi L
    Adv Biomed Res; 2023; 12():30. PubMed ID: 37057224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model.
    Suttapanit K; Yuksen C; Aramvanitch K; Meemongkol T; Chandech A; Songkathee B; Nuanprom P
    Turk J Emerg Med; 2020; 20(4):175-179. PubMed ID: 33089025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Endotracheal tube extubation force: adhesive tape versus endotracheal tube holder.
    Shimizu T; Mizutani T; Yamashita S; Hagiya K; Tanaka M
    Respir Care; 2011 Nov; 56(11):1825-9. PubMed ID: 21605477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of commercial and noncommercial endotracheal tube-securing devices.
    Fisher DF; Chenelle CT; Marchese AD; Kratohvil JP; Kacmarek RM
    Respir Care; 2014 Sep; 59(9):1315-23. PubMed ID: 24368866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of techniques for securing the endotracheal tube while wearing chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear protection: a manikin study.
    Castle N; Owen R; Clark S; Hann M; Reeces D; Gurney I
    Prehosp Disaster Med; 2010; 25(6):589-94. PubMed ID: 21181696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Extubation force: a comparison of adhesive tape, non-adhesive tape and a commercial endotracheal tube holder.
    Owen R; Castle N; Hann H; Reeves D; Naidoo R; Naidoo S
    Resuscitation; 2009 Nov; 80(11):1296-300. PubMed ID: 19726121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of airway-securing method on prehospital endotracheal tube dislodgment.
    Kupas DF; Kauffman KF; Wang HE
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2010; 14(1):26-30. PubMed ID: 19947864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Shifts in endotracheal tube position due to chest compressions: a simulation comparison by fixation method.
    Komasawa N; Fujiwara S; Miyazaki S; Ohchi F; Minami T
    J Emerg Med; 2015 Feb; 48(2):241-6. PubMed ID: 25440458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Endotracheal tube fixation time: a comparison of three fixation methods in a military field scenario.
    Epstein D; Strashewsky R; Furer A; Tsur AM; Chen J; Lehavi A
    BMJ Mil Health; 2022 Apr; 168(2):109-111. PubMed ID: 32205331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of tape-tying versus a tube-holding device for securing endotracheal tubes in adults.
    Murdoch E; Holdgate A
    Anaesth Intensive Care; 2007 Oct; 35(5):730-5. PubMed ID: 17933160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A Comparison of the Haider Tube-Guard® Endotracheal Tube Holder Versus Adhesive Tape to Determine if This Novel Device Can Reduce Endotracheal Tube Movement and Prevent Unplanned Extubation.
    Buckley JC; Brown AP; Shin JS; Rogers KM; Hoftman NN
    Anesth Analg; 2016 May; 122(5):1439-43. PubMed ID: 26983051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Extubation force: tape versus endotracheal tube holders.
    Carlson J; Mayrose J; Krause R; Jehle D
    Ann Emerg Med; 2007 Dec; 50(6):686-91. PubMed ID: 17599694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Two Different Endotracheal Tube Securing Techniques: Fixing Bandage vs. Adhesive Tape.
    Seyedhosseini J; Ahmadi M; Nejati A; Ardalan A; Ghafari M; Vahidi E
    Adv J Emerg Med; 2017; 1(1):e3. PubMed ID: 31172055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of the Force Required for Dislodgement Between Secured and Unsecured Airways.
    Davenport C; Martin-Gill C; Wang HE; Mayrose J; Carlson JN
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2018; 22(6):778-781. PubMed ID: 29714527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Predicting endotracheal tube size from length: Evaluation of the Broselow tape in Indian children.
    Subramanian S; Nishtala M; Ramavakoda CY; Kothari G
    J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol; 2018; 34(1):73-77. PubMed ID: 29643627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of tube-taping versus a tube-holding device for securing endotracheal tubes in adults undergoing surgery in prone position.
    Santhosh MC; Torgal SV; Pai RB; Roopa S; Santoshi VB; Rao RP
    Acta Anaesthesiol Belg; 2013; 64(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 24191528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Best practice in stabilisation of oral endotracheal tubes: a systematic review.
    Gardner A; Hughes D; Cook R; Henson R; Osborne S; Gardner G
    Aust Crit Care; 2005 Nov; 18(4):158, 160-5. PubMed ID: 18038537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ambu AuraGain versus intubating laryngeal tube suction as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.
    Bruceta MA; Priti DG; McAllister P; Prozesky J; Vaida SJ; Budde AO
    J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol; 2019; 35(3):348-352. PubMed ID: 31543583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of methods used to secure pediatric endotracheal tubes using a live human dermal model.
    Gamble JJ; McKay WP; Peeling A; Durr C; Krysak T; Guo R; Lange T; Cowen J; Bajwa JS
    Can J Anaesth; 2021 May; 68(5):645-652. PubMed ID: 33438171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of a new, ultrathin-walled two-stage twin endotracheal tube and a conventional endotracheal tube in very premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a pilot study.
    Parravicini E; Baccarelli A; Wung JT; Kolobow T; Lorenz JM
    Am J Perinatol; 2007 Feb; 24(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 17304419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.