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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8623066)

  • 1. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Minerva cervicothoracic orthosis.
    Sharpe KP; Rao S; Ziogas A
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1995 Jul; 20(13):1475-9. PubMed ID: 8623066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Do cervical collars and cervicothoracic orthoses effectively stabilize the injured cervical spine? A biomechanical investigation.
    Ivancic PC
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Jun; 38(13):E767-74. PubMed ID: 23486409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The yale cervical orthosis: an evaluation of its effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects and a comparison with other cervical orthoses.
    Johnson RM; Hart DL; Owen JR; Lerner E; Chapin W; Zeleznik R
    Phys Ther; 1978 Jul; 58(7):865-71. PubMed ID: 662928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of the thermoplastic Minerva body jacket on cervical spine motion.
    Maiman D; Millington P; Novak S; Kerk J; Ellingsen J; Wenninger W
    Neurosurgery; 1989 Sep; 25(3):363-7; discussion 367-8. PubMed ID: 2771007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Emergency cervical-spine immobilization.
    Chandler DR; Nemejc C; Adkins RH; Waters RL
    Ann Emerg Med; 1992 Oct; 21(10):1185-8. PubMed ID: 1416294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. A comparison study.
    Askins V; Eismont FJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1997 Jun; 22(11):1193-8. PubMed ID: 9201855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of orthoses on three-dimensional load-displacement properties of the cervical spine.
    Ivancic PC
    Eur Spine J; 2013 Jan; 22(1):169-77. PubMed ID: 23090094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses.
    Bell KM; Frazier EC; Shively CM; Hartman RA; Ulibarri JC; Lee JY; Kang JD; Donaldson WF
    Spine J; 2009 Mar; 9(3):225-31. PubMed ID: 18504164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals.
    Schneider AM; Hipp JA; Nguyen L; Reitman CA
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Jan; 32(1):E1-6. PubMed ID: 17202874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of cervical orthoses on neck biomechanical responses during transitioning from supine to upright.
    Ivancic PC
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2013 Mar; 28(3):239-45. PubMed ID: 23434342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects.
    Johnson RM; Hart DL; Simmons EF; Ramsby GR; Southwick WO
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 1977 Apr; 59(3):332-9. PubMed ID: 849944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of 2 different thoracolumbar orthoses on the stability of the spine during various body movements.
    Kienle A; Saidi S; Oberst M
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Aug; 38(17):E1082-9. PubMed ID: 23644685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effectiveness of Adjustable Cervical Orthoses and Modular Cervical Thoracic Orthoses in Restricting Neck Motion: A Comparative In vivo Biomechanical Study.
    Gao F
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Oct; 40(19):E1046-51. PubMed ID: 26076435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of the Nebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilization collar, with three standard models.
    Alberts LR; Mahoney CR; Neff JR
    J Orthop Trauma; 1998 Aug; 12(6):425-30. PubMed ID: 9715451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The stabilizing effects of different orthoses in the intact and unstable upper cervical spine: a cadaver study.
    Richter D; Latta LL; Milne EL; Varkarakis GM; Biedermann L; Ekkernkamp A; Ostermann PA
    J Trauma; 2001 May; 50(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 11371840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses.
    Hartman JT; Palumbo F; Hill BJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1975; (109):97-102. PubMed ID: 1132211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The halo-Milwaukee brace. Case series of a revived technique.
    Godfried DH; Amory DW; Lubicky JP
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1999 Nov; 24(21):2273-7. PubMed ID: 10562996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The ability of external immobilizers to restrict movement of the cervical spine: a systematic review.
    Holla M; Huisman JM; Verdonschot N; Goosen J; Hosman AJ; Hannink G
    Eur Spine J; 2016 Jul; 25(7):2023-36. PubMed ID: 27032640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Effect of the Cervical Orthosis on Swallowing Physiology and Cervical Spine Motion During Swallowing.
    Mekata K; Takigawa T; Matsubayashi J; Toda K; Hasegawa Y; Ito Y
    Dysphagia; 2016 Feb; 31(1):74-83. PubMed ID: 26607160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Mastication causing segmental spinal motion in common cervical orthoses.
    Chin KR; Auerbach JD; Adams SB; Sodl JF; Riew KD
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Feb; 31(4):430-4. PubMed ID: 16481953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.