143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16374749)
1. Feasibility and reproducibility of an image-scoring method for quality control of fetal biometry in the second trimester.
Salomon LJ; Bernard JP; Duyme M; Doris B; Mas N; Ville Y
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Jan; 27(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 16374749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH-21
Cavallaro A; Ash ST; Napolitano R; Wanyonyi S; Ohuma EO; Molloholli M; Sande J; Sarris I; Ioannou C; Norris T; Donadono V; Carvalho M; Purwar M; Barros FC; Jaffer YA; Bertino E; Pang R; Gravett MG; Salomon LJ; Noble JA; Altman DG; Papageorghiou AT
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Sep; 52(3):332-339. PubMed ID: 28718938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Fetal biometry by an inexperienced operator using two- and three-dimensional ultrasound.
Yang F; Leung KY; Lee YP; Chan HY; Tang MH
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2010 May; 35(5):566-71. PubMed ID: 20183864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A score-based method for quality control of fetal images at routine second-trimester ultrasound examination.
Salomon LJ; Winer N; Bernard JP; Ville Y
Prenat Diagn; 2008 Sep; 28(9):822-7. PubMed ID: 18646244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Analysis of Z-score distribution for the quality control of fetal ultrasound measurements at 20-24 weeks.
Salomon LJ; Bernard JP; Ville Y
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Dec; 26(7):750-4. PubMed ID: 16308899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry.
Perni SC; Chervenak FA; Kalish RB; Magherini-Rothe S; Predanic M; Streltzoff J; Skupski DW
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Nov; 24(6):654-8. PubMed ID: 15476300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size.
Ioannou C; Talbot K; Ohuma E; Sarris I; Villar J; Conde-Agudelo A; Papageorghiou AT
BJOG; 2012 Nov; 119(12):1425-39. PubMed ID: 22882780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Expected-value bias in routine third-trimester growth scans.
Drukker L; Droste R; Chatelain P; Noble JA; Papageorghiou AT
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Mar; 55(3):375-382. PubMed ID: 31763735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Fetal biometry in ethnic Chinese: biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length.
Leung TN; Pang MW; Daljit SS; Leung TY; Poon CF; Wong SM; Lau TK
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Mar; 31(3):321-7. PubMed ID: 18241086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A score-based method for quality control of fetal hard palate assessment during routine second-trimester ultrasound examination.
Fuchs F; Burlat J; Grosjean F; Rayssiguier R; Captier G; Faure JM; Dumont C
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2018 Nov; 97(11):1300-1308. PubMed ID: 29964326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fetal biometry between 20-42 weeks of gestation for Polish population.
Dubiel M; Krajewski M; Pietryga M; Tretyn A; Breborowicz G; Lindquist P; Gudmundsson S
Ginekol Pol; 2008 Nov; 79(11):746-53. PubMed ID: 19140496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of automated tool for two-dimensional fetal biometry.
Salim I; Cavallaro A; Ciofolo-Veit C; Rouet L; Raynaud C; Mory B; Collet Billon A; Harrison G; Roundhill D; Papageorghiou AT
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Nov; 54(5):650-654. PubMed ID: 30478919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reference charts and equations of Korean fetal biometry.
Jung SI; Lee YH; Moon MH; Song MJ; Min JY; Kim JA; Park JH; Yang JH; Kim MY; Chung JH; Cho JY; Kim KG
Prenat Diagn; 2007 Jun; 27(6):545-51. PubMed ID: 17431930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validation of Reference Charts for Mid-Trimester Fetal Biometry.
van de Kamp K; Pajkrt E; Zwinderman AH; van der Post JA; Snijders RJM
Fetal Diagn Ther; 2019; 45(1):42-49. PubMed ID: 29533928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. French fetal biometry: reference equations and comparison with other charts.
Salomon LJ; Duyme M; Crequat J; Brodaty G; Talmant C; Fries N; Althuser M
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Aug; 28(2):193-8. PubMed ID: 16570263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimization of Fetal Biometry With 3D Ultrasound and Image Recognition (EPICEA): protocol for a prospective cross-sectional study.
Ambroise Grandjean G; Hossu G; Banasiak C; Ciofolo-Veit C; Raynaud C; Rouet L; Morel O; Beaumont M
BMJ Open; 2019 Dec; 9(12):e031777. PubMed ID: 31843832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Longitudinal reference ranges for fetal ultrasound biometry in twin pregnancies.
Liao AW; Brizot Mde L; Kang HJ; Assunção RA; Zugaib M
Clinics (Sao Paulo); 2012; 67(5):451-5. PubMed ID: 22666788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Volumetric (3D) imaging reduces inter- and intraobserver variation of fetal biometry measurements.
Chan LW; Fung TY; Leung TY; Sahota DS; Lau TK
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Apr; 33(4):447-52. PubMed ID: 19277977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Femur-sparing pattern of abnormal fetal growth in pregnant women from New York City after maternal Zika virus infection.
Walker CL; Merriam AA; Ohuma EO; Dighe MK; Gale M; Rajagopal L; Papageorghiou AT; Gyamfi-Bannerman C; Adams Waldorf KM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Aug; 219(2):187.e1-187.e20. PubMed ID: 29738748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Fetal biometry: how well can offline measurements from three-dimensional volumes substitute real-time two-dimensional measurements?
Sarris I; Ohuma E; Ioannou C; Sande J; Altman DG; Papageorghiou AT;
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Nov; 42(5):560-70. PubMed ID: 23335102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
