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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38719114)

  • 1. Reply to Editorial Comment on "Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs. Single-Use Cystoscopes with assessment of environmental footprint".
    Bertolo R; Veccia A; Antonelli A
    Urology; 2024 Jun; 188():78-79. PubMed ID: 38719114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Editorial Comment on "Institutional Micro-cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint".
    Zampini AM
    Urology; 2024 Jun; 188():77. PubMed ID: 38648948
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint.
    Bertolo R; Gilioli V; Veccia A; Malandra S; Dal Corso L; Fenzi D; Mazzetto F; Antonelli A
    Urology; 2024 Jun; 188():70-76. PubMed ID: 38499187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cost and Environmental Impact of Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Devices.
    Boucheron T; Lechevallier E; Gondran-Tellier B; Michel F; Bastide C; Martin N; Baboudjian M
    J Endourol; 2022 Oct; 36(10):1317-1321. PubMed ID: 35703325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A micro-costing analysis of outpatient flexible cystoscopy: implications for adoption of single-use flexible cystoscopes.
    Su ZT; Huang MM; Matlaga BR; Hutfless S; Koo K
    World J Urol; 2021 Nov; 39(11):4275-4281. PubMed ID: 34019137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment.
    McGain F; Story D; Lim T; McAlister S
    Br J Anaesth; 2017 Jun; 118(6):862-869. PubMed ID: 28505289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes.
    Taguchi K; Usawachintachit M; Tzou DT; Sherer BA; Metzler I; Isaacson D; Stoller ML; Chi T
    J Endourol; 2018 Apr; 32(4):267-273. PubMed ID: 29239227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Reusable versus disposable forceps: the dilemma of cost and safety.
    Gordon SJ
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):363-5. PubMed ID: 10699795
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a comparative cost analysis.
    Schaer GN; Koechli OR; Haller U
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1995 Dec; 173(6):1812-5. PubMed ID: 8610767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Cystoscopes: A Path to Greener Urological Procedures.
    Baboudjian M; Pradere B; Martin N; Gondran-Tellier B; Angerri O; Boucheron T; Bastide C; Emiliani E; Misrai V; Breda A; Lechevallier E
    Eur Urol Focus; 2023 Jul; 9(4):681-687. PubMed ID: 36543725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety.
    Siu J; Hill AG; MacCormick AD
    ANZ J Surg; 2017 Jan; 87(1-2):28-33. PubMed ID: 27878921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Reusable, re-posable and disposable instrumentation.
    Melzer A; Buess G
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):127-8. PubMed ID: 7552127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Disposable versus reusable instrumentation.
    Maddern GJ; Bessell JR
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):125-6. PubMed ID: 7552126
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.