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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

314 related items for PubMed ID: 30885506

  • 1. Does Cost Influence the Choice of Disposable Versus Reusable Instruments? Mailed Survey of Obstetrician/Gynaecologists.
    Yang H, Capstick VA, Bentz C, Ross S.
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2019 Oct; 41(10):1416-1422. PubMed ID: 30885506
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Can a simple 'cost-awareness' campaign for laparoscopic hysterectomy change the use and costs of disposable surgical supplies? Pre-post non-controlled study.
    Ross S, Lier D, Mackinnon G, Bentz C, Rakowski G, Capstick VA.
    BMJ Open; 2019 Dec 11; 9(12):e027099. PubMed ID: 31831528
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. A prospective comparison of the costs of reusable and limited-reuse laparoscopic instruments.
    DesCôteaux JG, Blackmore K, Parsons L.
    Can J Surg; 1998 Apr 11; 41(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 9575997
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety.
    Siu J, Hill AG, MacCormick AD.
    ANZ J Surg; 2017 Jan 11; 87(1-2):28-33. PubMed ID: 27878921
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Excess use of surgical supplies in minimally invasive benign gynecology surgery: an observational study.
    Mohr-Sasson A, Aycock M, Higgason N, Hui M, Bhalwal A, Jalloul R, Leon MG, Dziadek O, Montealegre A.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Aug 11; 231(2):273.e1-273.e7. PubMed ID: 38761838
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Adler S, Scherrer M, Rückauer KD, Daschner FD.
    Surg Endosc; 2005 Feb 11; 19(2):268-72. PubMed ID: 15580444
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. [Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic surgery--a controlled study].
    Paolucci V, Schaeff B, Gutt C, Morawe G, Encke A.
    Zentralbl Chir; 1995 Feb 11; 120(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 7887039
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Electronic Health Record Adoption among Obstetrician/Gynecologists in the United States: Physician Practices and Satisfaction.
    Raglan GB, Margolis B, Paulus RA, Schulkin J.
    J Healthc Qual; 2017 Feb 11; 39(3):144-152. PubMed ID: 28481842
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a comparative cost analysis.
    Schaer GN, Koechli OR, Haller U.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1995 Dec 11; 173(6):1812-5. PubMed ID: 8610767
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Comparison of the Costs of Reusable Versus Disposable Equipment for Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Procedures Using Activity-Based Costing Analysis.
    Voigt J, Seigerman D, Lutsky K, Beredjiklian P, Leinberry C.
    J Hand Surg Am; 2021 Apr 11; 46(4):339.e1-339.e15. PubMed ID: 33191039
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Physician Engagement in Improving Operative Supply Chain Efficiency Through Review of Surgeon Preference Cards.
    Harvey LFB, Smith KA, Curlin H.
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017 Apr 11; 24(7):1116-1120. PubMed ID: 28669894
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 16.