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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10352381)

  • 21. The nonstress test.
    Keegan KA
    Clin Obstet Gynecol; 1987 Dec; 30(4):921-35. PubMed ID: 3319323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Should assessment of amniotic fluid volume form an integral part of antenatal fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancy?
    Anandakumar C; Biswas A; Arulkumaran S; Wong YC; Malarvishy G; Ratnam SS
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1993 Aug; 33(3):272-5. PubMed ID: 8304891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Gestational age and fetal biophysical assessment.
    Baskett TF
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1988 Feb; 158(2):332-4. PubMed ID: 3341411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The rapid biophysical profile for early intrapartum fetal well-being assessment.
    Tongprasert F; Jinpala S; Srisupandit K; Tongsong T
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2006 Oct; 95(1):14-7. PubMed ID: 16860803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A comparison of the auscultated acceleration test and the nonstress test as predictors of perinatal outcomes.
    Paine LL; Benedict MI; Strobino DM; Gegor CL; Larson EL
    Nurs Res; 1992; 41(2):87-91. PubMed ID: 1549525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Fetal startle response observed under ultrasonography: a good predictor of a reassuring biophysical profile.
    Sarinoglu C; Dell J; Mercer BM; Sibai BM
    Obstet Gynecol; 1996 Oct; 88(4 Pt 1):599-602. PubMed ID: 8841226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Fetal biophysical profile and perinatal death.
    Baskett TF; Allen AC; Gray JH; Young DC; Young LM
    Obstet Gynecol; 1987 Sep; 70(3 Pt 1):357-60. PubMed ID: 3306498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The use of vibroacoustic stimulation during the abnormal or equivocal biophysical profile.
    Inglis SR; Druzin ML; Wagner WE; Kogut E
    Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Sep; 82(3):371-4. PubMed ID: 8355936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [The role of vibroacoustic stimulation in antenatal fetal assessment].
    Leis Marquez MT; Hernández Andrade E; Maya Goldsmit D; Pérez de la Huerta MI; López García RB
    Ginecol Obstet Mex; 1993 Dec; 61():356-9. PubMed ID: 8119607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Fetal acoustic stimulation testing. III. Predictive value of a reactive test.
    Smith CV; Phelan JP; Broussard P; Paul RH
    J Reprod Med; 1988 Feb; 33(2):217-8. PubMed ID: 3351822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Multiple assessment techniques evaluate antepartum fetal risks.
    Bobby P
    Pediatr Ann; 2003 Sep; 32(9):609-16. PubMed ID: 14508894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Short fetal acoustic stimulation test for rapid antepartum assessment of fetal well-being.
    Tannirandorn Y; Kittipibul V
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2001 Apr; 84(4):520-4. PubMed ID: 11460963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Amniotic fluid index vs single deepest pocket technique during modified biophysical profile: a randomized clinical trial.
    Chauhan SP; Doherty DD; Magann EF; Cahanding F; Moreno F; Klausen JH
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Aug; 191(2):661-7; discussion 667-8. PubMed ID: 15343260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Further experience with the fetal biophysical profile.
    Platt LD; Eglinton GS; Sipos L; Broussard PM; Paul RH
    Obstet Gynecol; 1983 Apr; 61(4):480-5. PubMed ID: 6681892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Antenatal fetal surveillance of women with severe obesity.
    Figueroa R; Carroll L; Trymbulak KM; Wakefield D
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2022 Dec; 35(25):9288-9293. PubMed ID: 35026965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Fetal acoustic stimulation test for early intrapartum fetal monitoring.
    Goonewardene M; Hanwellage K
    Ceylon Med J; 2011 Mar; 56(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 21542428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Predicting poor neonatal outcome: a comparative study of noninvasive antenatal testing methods.
    Dubinsky T; Lau M; Powell F; Garcia J; Mastobattista J; Parvey HR; Sickler K; Maklad N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Mar; 168(3):827-31. PubMed ID: 9057543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Techniques for antepartum fetal surveillance.
    Hueston WJ
    Am Fam Physician; 1991 Sep; 44(3):893-904. PubMed ID: 1877431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Fetal vibro-acoustic stimulation with a can--a clinical study.
    Hofmeyr GJ; Lawrie TA; de Jager M; da Ponte A
    S Afr Med J; 1998 Feb; 88(2 Suppl):199-200, 203. PubMed ID: 9542487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The fetal acoustic stimulation test: a reliable and cost effective method of antepartum fetal monitoring.
    Batcha TM; Goonewardene IM
    Ceylon Med J; 2005 Dec; 50(4):156-9. PubMed ID: 16538910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.