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 *

264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7552127)

  • 21. Reusable biopsy forceps: a cost-effective measure for the endoscopy suite.
    Raltz SL; Kozarek RA; Pethigal PA; Moorhouse MA; Merriam LD
    Gastroenterol Nurs; 1995; 18(5):167-70. PubMed ID: 7578296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments: cost analysis.
    DesCôteaux JG; Tye L; Poulin EC
    Can J Surg; 1996 Apr; 39(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 8769924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Advantages of disposable endoscopic accessories.
    Petersen BT
    Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am; 2000 Apr; 10(2):341-8. PubMed ID: 10683219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. More and more pieces of equipment are labelled 'disposable' or 'single use only'.
    Garwood S
    Prof Nurse; 1995 Apr; 10(7):453. PubMed ID: 7724636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Adventures in recycling: the reuse of "disposable" pulse oximeter probes.
    Salyer JW; Burton K; Lynch J; Ballard J; Keenan J
    Respir Care; 1993 Oct; 38(10):1072-6. PubMed ID: 10145890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Advantages of reusable accessories.
    Wolfsen HC
    Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am; 2000 Apr; 10(2):349-59. PubMed ID: 10683220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Medical male circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention in Uganda - the cost of disposable versus re-usable circumcision kits.
    Kuznik A; Lamorde M; Sekavuga DB; Picho B; Coutinho A
    Trop Doct; 2012 Jan; 42(1):5-7. PubMed ID: 22223725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Biopsy forceps: disposable or reusable?
    Muscarella LF
    Gastroenterol Nurs; 2001; 24(2):64-8. PubMed ID: 11847729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective cost evaluation.
    Deprez PH; Horsmans Y; Van Hassel M; Hoang P; Piessevaux H; Geubel A
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):262-5. PubMed ID: 10699768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. [Cost analysis comparing single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and conventional reusable fiberoptic flexible scopes for difficult tracheal intubation].
    Aïssou M; Coroir M; Debes C; Camus T; Hadri N; Gutton C; Beaussier M
    Ann Fr Anesth Reanim; 2013 May; 32(5):291-5. PubMed ID: 23561716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits.
    McGain F; McAlister S; McGavin A; Story D
    Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1073-80. PubMed ID: 22492185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. An assessment of the clinical effectiveness of surgical drapes.
    Lipp A
    Nurs Times; 2003 Dec 9-15; 99(49):28-31. PubMed ID: 14705343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Reach the bottom line on reuse. Weights and balances.
    Mater Manag Health Care; 1997 May; 6(5):40, 42. PubMed ID: 10167495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of a reusable with a disposable vessel-sealing device in a sheep model: efficacy and costs.
    Klar M; Haberstroh J; Timme S; Fritzsch G; Gitsch G; Denschlag D
    Fertil Steril; 2011 Feb; 95(2):795-8. PubMed ID: 20951375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. The valve design of disposable and reusable trocars.
    O'Rourke NA
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995 Feb; 3(1):48-50. PubMed ID: 7757439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.