2022
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7516339
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect Evaluation of Preoperative Psychological Nursing Intervention on Sinusitis Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia by Multiplanner Reformation-Based CT

Abstract: The aim of this study was at exploring the clinical effect of CT images based on multiplanner reformation (MPR) combined with a preoperative psychological nursing intervention model in sinusitis patients undergoing general anesthesia. Sixty sinusitis patients who received MPR-based CT examination and general anesthesia were selected as the study subjects and randomly divided into the control group ( n = 30 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 25 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%