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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1165736)

  • 1. Evaluation of copper-7 intrauterine device in Malaysian women.
    Sivanesaratnam V; Puvan IS; Sinnathuray TA
    Med J Aust; 1975 Aug; 2(8):298-301. PubMed ID: 1165736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Copper-7 intrauterine device (Gravigard). Report of experience].
    Jürgensen O; Stenzel I; Wirth A; Sina D; Taubert HD
    Fortschr Med; 1976 Mar; 94(9):515-21. PubMed ID: 964914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Intrauterine devices: an effective alternative to oral hormonal contraception.
    Prescrire Int; 2009 Jun; 18(101):125-30. PubMed ID: 19637436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of the delta copper T and the copper T 200 in Bologna, Italy.
    Melega C; Biscontin S; Canedi L; Marchesini FP; Tirelli S; Bartolotti T; Flamigni C
    Acta Eur Fertil; 1986; 17(1):39-41. PubMed ID: 3727892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Intrauterine contraception with copper-T 200 device- a retrospective analysis of 334 cases (author's transl)].
    Salzer H; Schneider WH; Eppel W
    Wien Klin Wochenschr; 1981 May; 93(11):354-8. PubMed ID: 7269615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Study of side-effects of Cu-T as intra-uterine contraceptive device in post medical termination of pregnancy and interval cases.
    Das CR; Pradhan G
    J Indian Med Assoc; 1995 Oct; 93(10):375-6. PubMed ID: 9053409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Performances of copper T 380A and multiload copper 375/250 intrauterine contraceptive devices in a comparative clinical trial.
    Arowojolu AO; Otolorin EO; Ladipo OA
    Afr J Med Med Sci; 1995 Mar; 24(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 7495202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative study of safety and efficacy of IUD insertions by physicians and nursing personnel in Brazil.
    Lassner KJ; Chen CH; Kropsch LA; Oberle MW; Lopes IM; Morris L
    Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1995 Sep; 29(3):206-15. PubMed ID: 8520606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Efficiency and acceptability of intrauterine contraceptive devices.
    Trutko NS
    Acta Med Hung; 1986; 43(2):103-8. PubMed ID: 3588154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A three-year study of the copper-7 minigravigard intrauterine contraceptive device in nulliparous women.
    Srisupandit S
    J Med Assoc Thai; 1988 Jun; 71(6):294-7. PubMed ID: 3171448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The use of a modified copper intrauterine device in nulliparous women with small uterine axial length.
    Goldstuck ND
    J Reprod Med; 1980 Oct; 25(4):183-6. PubMed ID: 7431367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Femilis LNG-IUS: contraceptive performance-an interim analysis.
    Wildemeersch D; Janssens D; Andrade A
    Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2009 Apr; 14(2):103-10. PubMed ID: 19340705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The intrauterine contraceptive device.
    Barwin BN; Tuttle S; Jolly EE
    Can Med Assoc J; 1978 Jan; 118(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 620385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Experiences with Antigon-F for intrauterine contraception].
    Cederqvist LL; Lauersen NH; Fuchs F
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1979 Sep; 141(37):2521-4. PubMed ID: 483438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Our experience with intrauterine devices (IUD) for birth control].
    Vidal JJ; Flores F; López de Medina R; Aisa E; Villar JM
    Acta Obstet Ginecol Hisp Lusit; 1980 Feb; 28(2):87-94. PubMed ID: 7395474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of the Gravigard intrauterine copper contraceptive device.
    Macourt DC
    Med J Aust; 1974 May; 1(18):717-8. PubMed ID: 4851932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.
    Gatz JL; Armstrong MA; Postlethwaite D; Raine-Bennett T; Chillemi G; Alabaster A; Merchant M; Reed SD; Ichikawa L; Getahun D; Fassett MJ; Shi JM; Xie F; Chiu VY; Im TM; Takhar HS; Wang J; Saltus CW; Ritchey ME; Asiimwe A; Pisa F; Schoendorf J; Wahdan Y; Zhou X; Hunter S; Anthony MS; Peipert JF
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 227(1):57.e1-57.e13. PubMed ID: 35395215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Experience with the Ypsilon (Soichet) intrauterine device.
    Yarkoni S; Sadovsky E
    Isr J Med Sci; 1978 Feb; 14(2):267-70. PubMed ID: 649355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Avoidance of the dimensional incompatibility as the main reason for side effects in intrauterine contraception.
    Kurz KH
    Contracept Deliv Syst; 1981 Jan; 2(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 12278585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A study of the acceptability and effectiveness of Norplant (R) contraceptive implants in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
    Arshat H; Rachagan SP; Kwa Siew Kim ; Ang Eng Suan ; Karim HA; Ismail MT
    Malays J Reprod Health; 1990 Jun; 8(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 12316341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.