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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16757919)

  • 21. The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry.
    Salomon LJ; Bernard JP; Duyme M; Buvat I; Ville Y
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Jun; 25(6):559-65. PubMed ID: 15909324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Fetal transabdominal biometry at 11-14 weeks of gestation.
    von Kaisenberg CS; Fritzer E; Kühling H; Jonat W
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2002 Dec; 20(6):564-74. PubMed ID: 12493045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Computer-assisted analysis for prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound-comparison of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL).
    Hsieh FJ; Chang FM; Huang HC; Lu CC; Ko TM; Chen HY
    Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi; 1987 Sep; 86(9):957-64. PubMed ID: 3320270
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Fetal growth in Peru: comparisons with international fetal size charts and implications for fetal growth assessment.
    Merialdi M; Caulfield LE; Zavaleta N; Figueroa A; Costigan KA; Dominici F; Dipietro JA
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Aug; 26(2):123-8. PubMed ID: 16041678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Ultrasound fetal biometry charts for a North American Caucasian population.
    Lessoway VA; Schulzer M; Wittmann BK; Gagnon FA; Wilson RD
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1998; 26(9):433-53. PubMed ID: 9800158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Prediction of birthweight by fetal ultrasound biometry.
    Nzeh DA; Rimmer S; Moore WM; Hunt L
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Nov; 65(779):987-9. PubMed ID: 1450836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Growth charts of fetal biometry: a longitudinal study.
    Munim S; Morris T; Baber N; Ansari Y; Azam SI
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2012 Jun; 25(6):692-8. PubMed ID: 21819339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. A comparison of fetal biometric ratios to neonatal morphometrics.
    Hays D; Patterson RM
    J Ultrasound Med; 1987 Feb; 6(2):71-3. PubMed ID: 3560313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Biometry 2000. Fetal growth charts by the French College of fetal ultrasonography and the Inserm U 155].
    Créquat J; Duyme M; Brodaty G
    Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2000 Jun; 28(6):435-45. PubMed ID: 10935308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Fetal weight estimation formulas with head, abdominal, femur, and thigh circumference measurements.
    Vintzileos AM; Campbell WA; Rodis JF; Bors-Koefoed R; Nochimson DJ
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1987 Aug; 157(2):410-4. PubMed ID: 3618691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Using Z-scores to compare biometry data obtained during prenatal ultrasound screening by midwives and physicians.
    Capmas P; Salomon LJ; Picone O; Fuchs F; Frydman R; Senat MV
    Prenat Diagn; 2010 Jan; 30(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 19960449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Revisiting first-trimester fetal biometry.
    Salomon LJ; Bernard JP; Duyme M; Dorion A; Ville Y
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2003 Jul; 22(1):63-6. PubMed ID: 12858306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Ultrasonic fetal size measurements in Brisbane, Australia.
    Schluter PJ; Pritchard G; Gill MA
    Australas Radiol; 2004 Dec; 48(4):480-6. PubMed ID: 15601328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age?
    Chervenak FA; Skupski DW; Romero R; Myers MK; Smith-Levitin M; Rosenwaks Z; Thaler HT
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Apr; 178(4):678-87. PubMed ID: 9579429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Fetal biometry: a comparison between experienced sonographers and automated measurements.
    Zalud I; Good S; Carneiro G; Georgescu B; Aoki K; Green L; Shahrestani F; Okumura R
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2009 Jan; 22(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 19165678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The importance of quality management in fetal measurement.
    Dudley NJ; Chapman E
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2002 Feb; 19(2):190-6. PubMed ID: 11876814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.