A comparative study of two types of urinary sheath.

Nursing times

Volumn 102, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 36-41

  Pemberton, Pamela ^a   Brooks, Anthony ^a   Eriksen, Christina Mai ^a   Frost, Sue ^a   Graham, Sue ^a   Greenman, Linda ^a   Hannigan, Helen ^a   Looms, Dagnia ^a   Moran, Sandra ^a   Neilsen, Pia Norup ^a   Ollerhead, Debra ^a   Shaw, Judith ^a   Williams, David ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADHESIVE AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CATHETERIZATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONDOM; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; ERYTHEMA; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PACKAGING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM; URINE INCONTINENCE; WOUND DRAINAGE;

ADHESIVES; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONDOMS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DERMATITIS, CONTACT; DRAINAGE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; ERYTHEMA; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MEN; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRODUCT PACKAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; URINARY CATHETERIZATION; URINARY INCONTINENCE;

EID: 33645323817     PISSN: 09547762     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (0)