Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Cuddigan, Janet

  • Google
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2023Medical Device Testing: Methods, Significance, and Clinical Applications3citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Black, Joyce
1 / 2 shared
Gefen, Amit
1 / 1 shared
Belo, Orel
1 / 1 shared
Orlov, Aleksei
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2023

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Black, Joyce
  • Gefen, Amit
  • Belo, Orel
  • Orlov, Aleksei
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Medical Device Testing: Methods, Significance, and Clinical Applications

  • Black, Joyce
  • Gefen, Amit
  • Belo, Orel
  • Orlov, Aleksei
  • Cuddigan, Janet
Abstract

<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>GENERAL PURPOSE</jats:title><jats:p>To present a study conducting objective biomechanical testing of medical devices known to cause medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in critically ill adults and comparing those results with clinical outcomes associated with each device.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>TARGET AUDIENCE</jats:title><jats:p>This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES</jats:title><jats:p>After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:</jats:p><jats:p>1. Explain the results of the study of the relationships between objective biomechanical tests of medical devices and clinical outcomes that help inform clinicians using these devices.</jats:p><jats:p>2. Synthesize the background information that informed the study.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>OBJECTIVE</jats:title><jats:p>To conduct bioengineering testing of devices that cause medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) in critically ill adults and compare testing results to the MDRPI clinical outcomes associated with each device.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>METHODS</jats:title><jats:p>Following the identification of MDRPI from oxygen-delivery devices and nasogastric tubes in critically ill adults who were hospitalized between January 2016 and October 2022, the specific manufacturer and model number of the devices were identified. Twelve devices and two prophylactic dressings in original packaging were sent to a bioengineering laboratory for testing. Using an integrated experimental-computational approach, the compressive elastic moduli (<jats:italic toggle="yes">E</jats:italic> [MPa]) was measured for each device and prophylactic dressing and compared with the properties of normal adult skin. The authors hypothesized that devices with greater mechanical stiffness (ie, higher <jats:italic toggle="yes">E</jats:italic> [MPa]) would be associated with a greater number and severity of MDRPIs.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>RESULTS</jats:title><jats:p>Researchers identified 68 patients with 88 MDRPIs. All PI stages except stage 4 were represented. Nasogastric tubes had the highest mechanical stiffness and were the most common MDRPI identified. In contrast, no soft nasal cannula MDRPIs were reported. Devices associated with the highest number of MDRPIs also had the highest <jats:italic toggle="yes">E</jats:italic> [MPa] values; researchers noted a moderate association between <jats:italic toggle="yes">E</jats:italic> [MPa] values and pressure injury severity. Prophylactic dressings had <jats:italic toggle="yes">E</jats:italic> [MPa] values within the range of normal adult skin.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>CONCLUSION</jats:title><jats:p>The relative mechanical stiffness of a device is an important factor in MDRPI etiology. However, factors such as duration of device use, tightness when securing devices, correct fit, and heat and humidity under devices should be considered in predicting MDRPI severity.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • Oxygen
  • size-exclusion chromatography