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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8768157)

  • 1. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization.
    Johnson DR; Hauswald M; Stockhoff C
    Am J Emerg Med; 1996 Jul; 14(4):369-72. PubMed ID: 8768157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Long backboard versus vacuum mattress splint to immobilize whole spine in trauma victims in the field: a randomized clinical trial.
    Mahshidfar B; Mofidi M; Yari AR; Mehrsorosh S
    Prehosp Disaster Med; 2013 Oct; 28(5):462-5. PubMed ID: 23746392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Maximizing comfort and minimizing ischemia: a comparison of four methods of spinal immobilization.
    Hauswald M; Hsu M; Stockoff C
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2000; 4(3):250-2. PubMed ID: 10895921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of the Ferno Scoop Stretcher with the long backboard for spinal immobilization.
    Krell JM; McCoy MS; Sparto PJ; Fisher GL; Stoy WA; Hostler DP
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2006; 10(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 16418091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The efficacy and comfort of full-body vacuum splints for cervical-spine immobilization.
    Hamilton RS; Pons PT
    J Emerg Med; 1996; 14(5):553-9. PubMed ID: 8933314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Prehospital midthigh trauma and traction splint use: recommendations for treatment protocols.
    Abarbanell NR
    Am J Emerg Med; 2001 Mar; 19(2):137-40. PubMed ID: 11239259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint.
    Etier BE; Norte GE; Gleason MM; Richter DL; Pugh KF; Thomson KB; Slater LV; Hart JM; Brockmeier SF; Diduch DR
    Orthop J Sports Med; 2017 Dec; 5(12):2325967117744757. PubMed ID: 29318167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of a long spinal board and vacuum mattress for spinal immobilisation.
    Luscombe MD; Williams JL
    Emerg Med J; 2003 Sep; 20(5):476-8. PubMed ID: 12954698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.
    Hemmes B; Poeze M; Brink PR
    J Trauma; 2010 Mar; 68(3):593-8. PubMed ID: 19918198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of tissue-interface pressure in healthy subjects lying on two trauma splinting devices: The vacuum mattress splint and long spine board.
    Pernik MN; Seidel HH; Blalock RE; Burgess AR; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR; Prasarn ML
    Injury; 2016 Aug; 47(8):1801-5. PubMed ID: 27324323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Backboard versus mattress splint immobilization: a comparison of symptoms generated.
    Chan D; Goldberg RM; Mason J; Chan L
    J Emerg Med; 1996; 14(3):293-8. PubMed ID: 8782022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A biomechanical comparison between the thoracolumbosacral surface contact area (SCA) of a standard backboard with other rigid immobilization surfaces.
    Kosashvili Y; Backstein D; Ziv YB; Safir O; Blumenfeld A; Mirovsky Y
    J Trauma; 2009 Jan; 66(1):191-4. PubMed ID: 19131824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of the flat torso versus the elevated torso shoulder pad removal techniques in a cadaveric cervical spine instability model.
    Horodyski M; DiPaola CP; DiPaola MJ; Conrad BP; Del Rossi G; Rechtine GR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Apr; 34(7):687-91. PubMed ID: 19333100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effectiveness of strapping techniques in spinal immobilization.
    Mazolewski P; Manix TH
    Ann Emerg Med; 1994 Jun; 23(6):1290-5. PubMed ID: 8198303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A review of spinal immobilization techniques.
    De Lorenzo RA
    J Emerg Med; 1996; 14(5):603-13. PubMed ID: 8933323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Revolutionary advances in enhancing patient comfort on patients transported on a backboard.
    Edlich RF; Mason SS; Vissers RJ; Gubler KD; Thacker JG; Pharr P; Anderson M; Long WB
    Am J Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 29(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 20825784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Long Backboard vs the Vacuum Mattress.
    McDonald N; Webster M; Orkin A; VanderBurgh D; Johnson DE
    Prehosp Disaster Med; 2014 Feb; 29(1):110. PubMed ID: 24429162
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Compulsory Use of the Backboard is Associated with Increased Frequency of Thoracolumbar Imaging.
    Clemency BM; Tanski CT; Gibson Chambers J; O'Brien M; Knapp AS; Clark AJ; McGoff P; Innes J; Lindstrom HA; Hostler D
    Prehosp Emerg Care; 2018; 22(4):506-510. PubMed ID: 29447489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Spine immobilization: prehospitalization to final destination.
    Kang DG; Lehman RA
    J Surg Orthop Adv; 2011; 20(1):2-7. PubMed ID: 21477526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prospective performance assessment of an out-of-hospital protocol for selective spine immobilization using clinical spine clearance criteria.
    Domeier RM; Frederiksen SM; Welch K
    Ann Emerg Med; 2005 Aug; 46(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 16046941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.