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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9669621)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Line-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric intensive-care-unit patients associated with a needleless device and intermittent intravenous therapy.
    McDonald LC; Banerjee SN; Jarvis WR
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1998 Oct; 19(10):772-7. PubMed ID: 9801286
    [TBL] [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. Needleless intravenous systems: A review.
    Russo PL; Harrington GA; Spelman DW
    Am J Infect Control; 1999 Oct; 27(5):431-4. PubMed ID: 10511490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Update: Catheter-related bloodstream infection rates in relation to clinical practice and needleless device type.
    Blake M
    Can J Infect Control; 2008; 23(3):156-60, 162. PubMed ID: 19024809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The benefits and limitations of needle protectors and needleless intravenous systems.
    Orenstein R
    J Intraven Nurs; 1999; 22(3):122-8. PubMed ID: 10640075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Needle-free devices: keeping the system closed.
    Kelly LJ; Jones T; Kirkham S
    Br J Nurs; 2017 Jan; 26(2):S14-S19. PubMed ID: 28132546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.