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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8442521)

  • 1. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem.
    Skolnick R; LaRocca J; Barba D; Paicius L
    Am J Infect Control; 1993 Feb; 21(1):39-41. PubMed ID: 8442521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a needleless intravenous access system.
    Yassi A; McGill ML; Khokhar JB
    Am J Infect Control; 1995 Apr; 23(2):57-64. PubMed ID: 7639404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital.
    Gartner K
    J Healthc Mater Manage; 1993 Sep; 11(8):44-6, 48-9. PubMed ID: 10128146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital.
    Gartner K
    Am J Infect Control; 1992 Apr; 20(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 1590602
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The interlink needleless intravenous system did not reduce the number of needlestick injuries in Christchurch hospital operating theatres.
    MacPherson J
    N Z Med J; 1996 Oct; 109(1031):387-8. PubMed ID: 8890881
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the acceptability of a needleless vascular-access system by nurses.
    Ihrig M; Cookson ST; Campbell K; Hartstein AI; Jarvis WR
    Am J Infect Control; 1997 Oct; 25(5):434-8. PubMed ID: 9343631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Application of cost-effectiveness methodology to the consideration of needlestick-prevention technology.
    Laufer FN; Chiarello LA
    Am J Infect Control; 1994 Apr; 22(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 8060008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous connection system: an assessment by injury rate and user satisfaction.
    Lawrence LW; Delclos GL; Felknor SA; Johnson PC; Frankowski RF; Cooper SP; Davidson A
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1997 Mar; 18(3):175-82. PubMed ID: 9090545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Randomized prospective study of the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates.
    L'Ecuyer PB; Schwab EO; Iademarco E; Barr N; Aton EA; Fraser VJ
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1996 Dec; 17(12):803-8. PubMed ID: 8985767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Implementation of a needleless intravenous access system at the University of Virginia Hospital.
    Fassel K; Coyner BJ; Jagger J
    QRC Advis; 1994 May; 10(7):4-5. PubMed ID: 10134073
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers?
    Orenstein R; Reynolds L; Karabaic M; Lamb A; Markowitz SM; Wong ES
    Am J Infect Control; 1995 Dec; 23(6):344-51. PubMed ID: 8821109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The usability and acceptability of a needleless connector system.
    Casey AL; Elliott TS
    Br J Nurs; 2007 Mar 8-21; 16(5):267-71. PubMed ID: 17505370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Introducing products to prevent needlesticks.
    Dugger B
    Nurs Manage; 1992 Oct; 23(10):62-6. PubMed ID: 1306655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A five-year study of needlestick injuries: significant reduction associated with communication, education, and convenient placement of sharps containers.
    Haiduven DJ; DeMaio TM; Stevens DA
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1992 May; 13(5):265-71. PubMed ID: 1593109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes.
    Mendelson MH; Short LJ; Schechter CB; Meyers BR; Rodriguez M; Cohen S; Lozada J; DeCambre M; Hirschman SZ
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1998 Jun; 19(6):401-6. PubMed ID: 9669621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A needleless intravenous system: an effective risk management strategy.
    Rutowski J; Peterson SL
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1993 Apr; 14(4):226-7. PubMed ID: 8478545
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A needleless closed system device (CLAVE) protects from intravascular catheter tip and hub colonization: a prospective randomized study.
    Bouza E; Muñoz P; López-Rodríguez J; Jesús Pérez M; Rincón C; Martín Rabadán P; Sánchez C; Bastida E
    J Hosp Infect; 2003 Aug; 54(4):279-87. PubMed ID: 12919758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluating needleless i.v. tubing.
    Munz N
    Am J Nurs; 1993 Feb; 93(2):74-5. PubMed ID: 8470707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Implementation of a customized needleless intravenous delivery system.
    Terrell F; Williams B
    J Intraven Nurs; 1993; 16(6):339-44. PubMed ID: 8301406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury.
    Sossai D; Puro V; Chiappatoli L; Dagnino G; Odone B; Polimeri A; Ruzza L; Palombo P; Fuscoe MS; Scognamiglio P
    Nurs Stand; 2010 Mar 24-30; 24(29):42-6. PubMed ID: 20426370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.