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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15098886)

  • 1. Can differences in labor induction rates be explained by case mix?
    Glantz JC; Guzick DS
    J Reprod Med; 2004 Mar; 49(3):175-81. PubMed ID: 15098886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adjustment for case mix in comparisons of cesarean delivery rates: university versus community hospitals in Vermont.
    Whitsel AI; Capeless EC; Abel DE; Stuart GS
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Nov; 183(5):1170-5. PubMed ID: 11084561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Indications for labor induction. Differences between university and community hospitals.
    Beebe LA; Rayburn WF; Beaty CM; Eberly KL; Stanley JR; Rayburn LA
    J Reprod Med; 2000 Jun; 45(6):469-75. PubMed ID: 10900580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cesarean delivery in Native American women: are low rates explained by practices common to the Indian health service?
    Mahoney SF; Malcoe LH
    Birth; 2005 Sep; 32(3):170-8. PubMed ID: 16128970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Induction of labor in the absence of standard medical indications: incidence and correlates.
    Lydon-Rochelle MT; Cárdenas V; Nelson JC; Holt VL; Gardella C; Easterling TR
    Med Care; 2007 Jun; 45(6):505-12. PubMed ID: 17515777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Rising rates of obstetric interventions: exploring the determinants of induction of labour.
    Humphrey T; Tucker JS
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2009 Mar; 31(1):88-94. PubMed ID: 19141563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes.
    Glantz JC
    J Reprod Med; 2005 Apr; 50(4):235-40. PubMed ID: 15916205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How much variation in CS rates can be explained by case mix differences?
    Paranjothy S; Frost C; Thomas J
    BJOG; 2005 May; 112(5):658-66. PubMed ID: 15842293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Temporal trends in the rates of trial of labor in low-risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.
    Yeh J; Wactawski-Wende J; Shelton JA; Reschke J
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Jan; 194(1):144. PubMed ID: 16389024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Rates of labor induction and primary cesarean delivery do not correlate with rates of adverse neonatal outcome in level I hospitals.
    Glantz JC
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2011 Apr; 24(4):636-42. PubMed ID: 20836744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical case mix adjustment of cesarean delivery rates in U.S. military hospitals, 2002.
    Linton A; Peterson MR; Williams TV
    Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Mar; 105(3):598-606. PubMed ID: 15738031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.
    Vrouenraets FP; Roumen FJ; Dehing CJ; van den Akker ES; Aarts MJ; Scheve EJ
    Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Apr; 105(4):690-7. PubMed ID: 15802392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Risk of uterine rupture in labor induction of patients with prior cesarean section: an inner city hospital experience.
    Lin C; Raynor BD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 May; 190(5):1476-8. PubMed ID: 15167874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Differences between hospitals in cesarean rates for term primigravidas with cephalic presentation.
    Fischer A; LaCoursiere DY; Barnard P; Bloebaum L; Varner M
    Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Apr; 105(4):816-21. PubMed ID: 15802411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Rates of labor induction without medical indication are overestimated when derived from birth certificate data.
    Bailit JL;
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2010 Sep; 203(3):269.e1-3. PubMed ID: 20816150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of managed care enrollment on primary and repeat cesarean rates among U.S. Department of Defense health care beneficiaries in military and civilian hospitals worldwide, 1999-2002.
    Linton A; Peterson MR
    Birth; 2004 Dec; 31(4):254-64. PubMed ID: 15566337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of abnormal results of outpatient fetal heart rate monitoring on maternal intervention in labor.
    Lamvu GM; Thorp JM; Stuart N; Hartmann KE
    J Reprod Med; 2006 Sep; 51(9):689-93. PubMed ID: 17039696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Induction of labor with prostaglandin E2 in women with previous cesarean section and unfavorable cervix.
    Yogev Y; Ben-Haroush A; Lahav E; Horowitz E; Hod M; Kaplan B
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2004 Oct; 116(2):173-6. PubMed ID: 15358459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Induction of labor: comparison of a cohort with uterine scar from previous cesarean section vs. a cohort with intact uterus.
    Locatelli A; Ghidini A; Ciriello E; Incerti M; Bonardi C; Regalia AL
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2006 Aug; 19(8):471-5. PubMed ID: 16966111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors.
    Cnattingius R; Höglund B; Kieler H
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2005 May; 84(5):456-62. PubMed ID: 15842210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.