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: 9973870)

  • 1. Maximum acceptable forces of dynamic pushing: comparison of two techniques.
    Ciriello VM; McGorry RW; Martin SE; Bezverkhny IB
    Ergonomics; 1999 Jan; 42(1):32-9. PubMed ID: 9973870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Psychophysically determined forces of dynamic pushing for female industrial workers: Comparison of two apparatuses.
    Ciriello VM; Maikala RV; Dempsey PG; O'Brien NV
    Appl Ergon; 2010 Jan; 41(1):141-5. PubMed ID: 19628201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Secular changes in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces over 20 years for male industrial workers.
    Ciriello VM; Dempsey PG; Maikala RV; O'Brien NV
    Ergonomics; 2008 May; 51(5):593-601. PubMed ID: 18432440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effects of task duration on psychophysically-determined maximum acceptable weights and forces.
    Ciriello VM; Snook SH; Blick AC; Wilkinson PL
    Ergonomics; 1990 Feb; 33(2):187-200. PubMed ID: 2354696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Psychophysically determined horizontal and vertical forces of dynamic pushing on high and low coefficient of friction floors for female industrial workers.
    Ciriello VM
    J Occup Environ Hyg; 2005 Mar; 2(3):136-42. PubMed ID: 15764537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of container size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for female industrial workers.
    Ciriello VM
    Appl Ergon; 2007 Jan; 38(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 16616883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after twenty years.
    Ciriello VM; Maikala RV; Dempsey PG; O'Brien NV
    Int Arch Occup Environ Health; 2011 Jun; 84(5):569-75. PubMed ID: 20953621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dynamic pushing on three frictional surfaces: maximum acceptable forces, cardiopulmonary and calf muscle metabolic responses in healthy men.
    Maikala RV; Dempsey PG; Ciriello VM; O'Brien NV
    Ergonomics; 2009 Jun; 52(6):735-46. PubMed ID: 19431004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Psychophysical basis for maximum pushing and pulling forces: A review and recommendations.
    Garg A; Waters T; Kapellusch J; Karwowski W
    Int J Ind Ergon; 2014 Mar; 44(2):281-291. PubMed ID: 26664045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Psychophysical capacity of industrial workers for lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically for 8 h work shifts.
    Mital A
    Ergonomics; 1992; 35(7-8):745-54. PubMed ID: 1633787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Force direction and physical load in dynamic pushing and pulling.
    de Looze MP; van Greuningen K; Rebel J; Kingma I; Kuijer PP
    Ergonomics; 2000 Mar; 43(3):377-90. PubMed ID: 10755660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces.
    Snook SH; Ciriello VM
    Ergonomics; 1991 Sep; 34(9):1197-213. PubMed ID: 1743178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Gender comparison of psychophysical forces, cardiopulmonary, and muscle metabolic responses during a simulated cart pushing task.
    Maikala RV; Ciriello VM; Dempsey PG; O'Brien NV
    Gait Posture; 2010 Oct; 32(4):524-9. PubMed ID: 20864348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Loading along the lumbar spine as influence by speed, control, load magnitude, and handle height during pushing.
    Marras WS; Knapik GG; Ferguson S
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2009 Feb; 24(2):155-63. PubMed ID: 19111950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Association between spinal loads and the psychophysical determination of maximum acceptable force during pushing tasks.
    Le P; Dufour J; Monat H; Rose J; Huber Z; Alder E; Radin Umar RZ; Hennessey B; Dutt M; Marras WS
    Ergonomics; 2012; 55(9):1104-14. PubMed ID: 22676341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Maximum acceptable repetitive lifting workload by Chinese subjects.
    Zhu ZX; Zhang ZJ
    Ergonomics; 1990 Jul; 33(7):875-84. PubMed ID: 2226423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mechanical loading of the low back and shoulders during pushing and pulling activities.
    Hoozemans MJ; Kuijer PP; Kingma I; van Dieën JH; de Vries WH; van der Woude LH; Veeger DJ; van der Beek AJ; Frings-Dresen MH
    Ergonomics; 2004 Jan; 47(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 14660215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pushing and pulling: personal mechanics influence spine loads.
    Lett KK; McGill SM
    Ergonomics; 2006 Jul; 49(9):895-908. PubMed ID: 16801235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Gender differences in exerted forces and physiological load during pushing and pulling of wheeled cages by postal workers.
    van der Beek AJ; Kluver BD; Frings-Dresen MH; Hoozemans MJ
    Ergonomics; 2000 Feb; 43(2):269-81. PubMed ID: 10675063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Further studies of psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces.
    Ciriello VM; Snook SH; Hughes GJ
    Hum Factors; 1993 Mar; 35(1):175-86. PubMed ID: 8509102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.