252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14990419)
41. Prenatal testing for limb reduction defects. How patients' views affect their choice of CVS.
Heckerling PS; Verp MS; Albert N
J Reprod Med; 1997 Feb; 42(2):114-20. PubMed ID: 9058348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis: medical and social implications. Indications, acceptance by doctors and patients, impact and cost: a 10-year review.
Bell JA; Pearn JH
Med J Aust; 1985 Jul; 143(2):76-9. PubMed ID: 3160918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Women's knowledge, concerns and psychological reactions before undergoing an invasive procedure for prenatal karyotyping.
Cederholm M; Axelsson O; Sjödén PO
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 1999 Oct; 14(4):267-72. PubMed ID: 10586479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. The influence of IVF, multiple gestation and miscarriage on the acceptance of genetic amniocentesis.
Elimian A; Demsky M; Figueroa R; Ogburn P; Spitzer AR; Gerald Quirk J
Prenat Diagn; 2003 Jun; 23(6):501-3. PubMed ID: 12813766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Equity shortfalls & failure of the welfare state: community willingness to pay for health care at government facilities in Jehlum (Pakistan).
Masud TI; Farooq N; Ghaffar A
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad; 2003; 15(4):43-9. PubMed ID: 15067833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most.
Kuppermann M; Feeny D; Gates E; Posner SF; Blumberg B; Washington AE
Prenat Diagn; 1999 Aug; 19(8):711-6. PubMed ID: 10451513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. The future of prenatal diagnosis: rapid testing or full karyotype? An audit of chromosome abnormalities and pregnancy outcomes for women referred for Down's Syndrome testing.
Ogilvie CM; Lashwood A; Chitty L; Waters JJ; Scriven PN; Flinter F
BJOG; 2005 Oct; 112(10):1369-75. PubMed ID: 16167939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Psychological distress before and after prenatal invasive karyotyping.
Cederholm M; Sjödén PO; Axelsson O
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2001 Jun; 80(6):539-45. PubMed ID: 11380290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. The maternal perspective on prenatal ultrasound.
Stephens MB; Montefalcon R; Lane DA
J Fam Pract; 2000 Jul; 49(7):601-4. PubMed ID: 10923568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Socioeconomic status, immigration/acculturation, and ethnic variations in breast conserving surgery, San Francisco Bay area.
Gomez SL; France AM; Lee MM
Ethn Dis; 2004; 14(1):134-40. PubMed ID: 15002933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Dec; 110(6):1459-67. PubMed ID: 18055749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Pregnant women's attitudes toward amniocentesis before receiving Down syndrome screening results.
Brajenović-Milić B; Babić I; Ristić S; Vraneković J; Brumini G; Kapović M
Womens Health Issues; 2008; 18(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 18180167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Trends in the utilization of invasive prenatal diagnosis in The Netherlands during 2000-2009.
Lichtenbelt KD; Alizadeh BZ; Scheffer PG; Stoutenbeek P; Schielen PC; Page-Christiaens LC; Schuring-Blom GH
Prenat Diagn; 2011 Aug; 31(8):765-72. PubMed ID: 21692084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Prenatal testing among women pregnant after assisted reproductive techniques in Denmark 1995-2000: a national cohort study.
Gjerris AC; Loft A; Pinborg A; Christiansen M; Tabor A
Hum Reprod; 2008 Jul; 23(7):1545-52. PubMed ID: 18385126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Socioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Guimarães C; Marra CA; Colley L; Gill S; Simpson S; Meneilly G; Queiroz RH; Lynd LD
Diabetes Technol Ther; 2009 Sep; 11(9):567-73. PubMed ID: 19764835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Comparison of the use of amniocentesis in two countries with different policies for prenatal testing: the case of France and the United States.
Khoshnood B; Blondel B; Bréart G; Lee KS; Pryde P; Schoendorf K
Prenat Diagn; 2005 Jan; 25(1):14-9. PubMed ID: 15662697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy 21: what women want and are willing to pay.
Verweij EJ; Oepkes D; de Vries M; van den Akker ME; van den Akker ES; de Boer MA
Patient Educ Couns; 2013 Dec; 93(3):641-5. PubMed ID: 24011429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Consumerism in prenatal diagnosis? A local Italian study.
Bellieni CV; Maffei M; Brogna A; Plantulli A; Cervo E; Reda M; Signorini L; Buonocore G; Petraglia F
Fetal Diagn Ther; 2008; 24(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 18504377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. The demand for health insurance coverage for tobacco dependence treatments: support for a benefit mandate and willingness to pay.
Halpin HA; McMenamin SB; Shade SB
Nicotine Tob Res; 2007 Dec; 9(12):1269-76. PubMed ID: 18058345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. [Improved prenatal diagnostic possibilities for congenital abnormalities and chromosomal disorders. Advantages and disadvantages of screening and diagnostic methods].
Nørgaard-Pedersen B; Larsen SO; Larsen JF
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Feb; 158(9):1201-7. PubMed ID: 8644423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
