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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8985767)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The epidemiology of needlestick and sharp instrument accidents in a Nigerian hospital.
    Adegboye AA; Moss GB; Soyinka F; Kreiss JK
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1994 Jan; 15(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 8133006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel.
    Lavoie MC; Verbeek JH; Pahwa M
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2014 Mar; (3):CD009740. PubMed ID: 24610008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard: implementing needleless systems and intravenous safety devices.
    Marini MA; Giangregorio M; Kraskinski JC
    Pediatr Emerg Care; 2004 Mar; 20(3):209-214. PubMed ID: 15094584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers.
    Ippolito G; De Carli G; Puro V; Petrosillo N; Arici C; Bertucci R; Bianciardi L; Bonazzi L; Cestrone A; Daglio M
    JAMA; 1994 Aug 24-31; 272(8):607-10. PubMed ID: 8057516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Needlestick injury: impact of a recapping device and an associated education program.
    Whitby M; Stead P; Najman JM
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1991 Apr; 12(4):220-5. PubMed ID: 2061580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluating needlestick injuries in nursing personnel. Development of a questionnaire.
    Rowe PM; Giuffre M
    AAOHN J; 1991 Nov; 39(11):503-7. PubMed ID: 1930383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Microbiologic evaluation of needleless and needle-access devices.
    Arduino MJ; Bland LA; Danzig LE; McAllister SK; Aguero SM
    Am J Infect Control; 1997 Oct; 25(5):377-80. PubMed ID: 9343619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.