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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9715451)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during the application and removal of cervical immobilization collars.
    Prasarn ML; Conrad B; Del Rossi G; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR
    J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2012 Jun; 72(6):1609-13. PubMed ID: 22695429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses. An in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by several widely used models.
    Sandler AJ; Dvorak J; Humke T; Grob D; Daniels W
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1996 Jul; 21(14):1624-9. PubMed ID: 8839463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living.
    Miller CP; Bible JE; Jegede KA; Whang PG; Grauer JN
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jun; 35(13):1271-8. PubMed ID: 20512025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. How effective is the Newport/Aspen collar? A prospective radiographic evaluation in healthy adult volunteers.
    Hughes SJ
    J Trauma; 1998 Aug; 45(2):374-8. PubMed ID: 9715199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of two new immobilization collars.
    Rosen PB; McSwain NE; Arata M; Stahl S; Mercer D
    Ann Emerg Med; 1992 Oct; 21(10):1189-95. PubMed ID: 1416295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses.
    Zhang S; Wortley M; Clowers K; Krusenklaus JH
    Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2005 Mar; 20(3):264-9. PubMed ID: 15698698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Range-of-motion restriction and craniofacial tissue-interface pressure from four cervical collars.
    Tescher AN; Rindflesch AB; Youdas JW; Jacobson TM; Downer LL; Miers AG; Basford JR; Cullinane DC; Stevens SR; Pankratz VS; Decker PA
    J Trauma; 2007 Nov; 63(5):1120-6. PubMed ID: 17993960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cervical collars are insufficient for immobilizing an unstable cervical spine injury.
    Horodyski M; DiPaola CP; Conrad BP; Rechtine GR
    J Emerg Med; 2011 Nov; 41(5):513-9. PubMed ID: 21397431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cervical immobilization in trauma patients: soft collars better than rigid collars? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bäcker HC; Elias P; Braun KF; Johnson MA; Turner P; Cunningham J
    Eur Spine J; 2022 Dec; 31(12):3378-3391. PubMed ID: 36181555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of the effectiveness of different cervical immobilization collars.
    McCabe JB; Nolan DJ
    Ann Emerg Med; 1986 Jan; 15(1):50-3. PubMed ID: 3942357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Improvised vs Standard Cervical Collar to Restrict Spine Movement in the Backcountry Environment.
    Porter A; Difrancesca M; Slack S; Hudecek L; McIntosh SE
    Wilderness Environ Med; 2019 Dec; 30(4):412-416. PubMed ID: 31706730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [The position of the head during treatment in the emergency room-an explorative analysis of immobilization of the cervical spine].
    Jung MK; Uzun DD; von Ehrlich-Treuenstätt GVR; Grützner PA; Kreinest M
    Anaesthesist; 2021 Nov; 70(11):922-927. PubMed ID: 33909105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Value of a rigid collar in addition to head blocks: a proof of principle study.
    Holla M
    Emerg Med J; 2012 Feb; 29(2):104-7. PubMed ID: 21335583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Biomechanical analysis of cervical orthoses in flexion and extension: a comparison of cervical collars and cervical thoracic orthoses.
    Gavin TM; Carandang G; Havey R; Flanagan P; Ghanayem A; Patwardhan AG
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2003; 40(6):527-37. PubMed ID: 15077665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.