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.
25. Prevalence of safer needle devices and factors associated with their adoption: results of a national hospital survey. Sinclair RC; Maxfield A; Marks EL; Thompson DR; Gershon RR Public Health Rep; 2002; 117(4):340-9. PubMed ID: 12477915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. New York State researchers find safer i.v. devices effective but costly, in need of refinement. Am J Hosp Pharm; 1994 Oct; 51(19):2326, 2328. PubMed ID: 7847398 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Preventing needlesticks. A market survey. Gurevich I RN; 1994 Nov; 57(11):44-9. PubMed ID: 7984880 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Needleless i.v. therapy: comparing three systems for safety. Prince K; Summers L; Knight MA Nurs Manage; 1994 Mar; 25(3):80N, 80P. PubMed ID: 8134048 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Toronto hospital reduces sharps injuries by 80%, eliminates blood collection injuries. A case study: Toronto East General Hospital pioneers healthcare worker safety. Visser L Healthc Q; 2006; 9(1):68-70, 4. PubMed ID: 16548437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparison of a needleless system with conventional heparin locks. Adams KS; Zehrer CL; Thomas W Am J Infect Control; 1993 Oct; 21(5):263-9. PubMed ID: 8267238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Technology assessment of two needleless systems. Horner KA J Intraven Nurs; 1998; 21(4):203-8. PubMed ID: 9866535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Valls V; Lozano MS; Yánez R; Martínez MJ; Pascual F; Lloret J; Ruiz JA Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 28(12):1352-60. PubMed ID: 17994515 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Staff survives 'shark attack,' gains new awareness of sharps disposal. Snyder L; Kelly K Mater Manag Health Care; 1993 Mar; 2(3):12, 14-5. PubMed ID: 10125536 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. A comparison between two intermittent intravenous systems without needles. Savino SR; Napolitano B J Intraven Nurs; 1994; 17(5):256-60. PubMed ID: 7965371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Needleless i.v. administration systems. Wolff ED; Graatsma BH; de Jong R; Dzoljic G Am J Hosp Pharm; 1993 Aug; 50(8):1575. PubMed ID: 8368211 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Decreasing central line infections and needlestick injury rates: combining best practice and introducing a luer-activated intravenous therapy system and antimicrobial intravenous connector. Charron K J Infus Nurs; 2012; 35(6):370-5. PubMed ID: 23132085 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. University hospital network evaluation of needleless i.v. systems. Sheehan MJ; White CA QRC Advis; 1994 May; 10(7):6-7. PubMed ID: 10134074 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Costs and benefits of measures to prevent needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Laufer FN; Chiarello L Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2000 Aug; 21(8):494. PubMed ID: 10968710 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Needlesticks: the health care hazard that will never go away. Hockenberger PL Health Facil Manage; 1996 May; 9(5):98. PubMed ID: 10157831 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]