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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11592537)

  • 1. Personal preferences of obstetricians towards childbirth.
    Land R; Parry E; Rane A; Wilson D
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2001 Aug; 41(3):249-52. PubMed ID: 11592537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A national confidential survey of obstetrician's personal preferences regarding mode of delivery.
    Mc Gurgan P; Coulter-Smith S; O' Donovan PJ
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2001 Jul; 97(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 11435001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice.
    Al-Mufti R; McCarthy A; Fisk NM
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 1997 May; 73(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 9175681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Danish obstetricians' personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey.
    Bergholt T; Østberg B; Legarth J; Weber T
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2004 Mar; 83(3):262-6. PubMed ID: 14995922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery.
    Groom KM; Paterson-Brown S; Fisk NM
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2002 Jan; 100(2):185-8. PubMed ID: 11750962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation.
    Kotaska A; Menticoglou S; Gagnon R;
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2009 Jun; 31(6):557-566. PubMed ID: 19646324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The management of breech pregnancies in Australia and New Zealand.
    Phipps H; Roberts CL; Nassar N; Raynes-Greenow CH; Peat B; Hutton EK
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2003 Aug; 43(4):294-7; discussion 261. PubMed ID: 14714714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. UK O&G trainees' attitudes to caesarean delivery for maternal request.
    Aref-Adib M; Vlachodimitropoulou E; Khasriya R; Lamb BW; Selo-Ojeme D
    J Obstet Gynaecol; 2018 Apr; 38(3):367-371. PubMed ID: 29374994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Flemish obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand.
    Jacquemyn Y; Ahankour F; Martens G
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2003 Dec; 111(2):164-6. PubMed ID: 14597245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Vaginal birth after Caesarean section: a survey of practice in Australia and New Zealand.
    Dodd J; Crowther CA
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2003 Jun; 43(3):226-31. PubMed ID: 14712990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Postpartum urinary and fecal incontinence in gemelar pregnancy according to route and mode of delivery].
    Cuerva González MJ; López Carpintero N; de la Calle Fernández MM; Usandizaga R; González A
    Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2011 Sep; 79(9):540-6. PubMed ID: 21966854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mode of delivery among Swedish midwives and obstetricians and their attitudes towards caesarean section.
    Sahlin M; Andolf E; Edman G; Wiklund I
    Sex Reprod Healthc; 2017 Mar; 11():112-116. PubMed ID: 28159121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Personal birth preferences and actual mode of delivery outcomes of obstetricians and gynaecologists in South West England; with comparison to regional and national birth statistics.
    Lightly K; Shaw E; Dailami N; Bisson D
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2014 Oct; 181():95-8. PubMed ID: 25129154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Jordanian obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery.
    Lataifeh I; Zayed F; Al-Kuran O; Al-Mehaisen L; Khriesat W; Khader Y
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2009; 88(6):733-6. PubMed ID: 19306134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A survey of trainee obstetricians preferences for childbirth.
    Wright JB; Wright AL; Simpson NA; Bryce FC
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2001 Jul; 97(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 11435003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Management of occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour: a survey of obstetric practice in Australia and New Zealand.
    Phipps H; de Vries B; Lee PN; Hyett JA
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2012 Oct; 52(5):450-4. PubMed ID: 22804812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Obstetric operation, instrumental delivery and 3rd degree perineal tear and anal incontinence].
    Kalis V; Stĕpán J; Turek J; Chaloupka P; Rokyta Z
    Ceska Gynekol; 2005 Nov; 70(6):411-8. PubMed ID: 17955791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Short statured primigravidae: Options for the obstetric management from a survey of UK obstetricians.
    Rachaneni S; Gurol-Urganci I; Basu M; Thakar R; Sultan A; Freeman R
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2021 Jan; 256():379-384. PubMed ID: 33279806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mode of delivery after obstetric anal sphincter injury and the risk of long-term anal incontinence.
    Jangö H; Langhoff-Roos J; Rosthøj S; Sakse A
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Jun; 214(6):733.e1-733.e13. PubMed ID: 26721778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The prevalence of enduring postnatal perineal morbidity and its relationship to type of birth and birth risk factors.
    Williams A; Herron-Marx S; Knibb R
    J Clin Nurs; 2007 Mar; 16(3):549-61. PubMed ID: 17335531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.