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)

  • 41. An evaluation of fetal weight prediction using a simple equation containing the fetal femur length.
    Woo JS; Wan MC
    J Ultrasound Med; 1986 Aug; 5(8):453-7. PubMed ID: 3528524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Fetal biometry: relevance in obstetrical practice.
    March MI; Warsof SL; Chauhan SP
    Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Mar; 55(1):281-7. PubMed ID: 22343244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Revisiting sonographic abdominal circumference measurements: a comparison of outer centiles with established nomograms.
    Smulian JC; Ananth CV; Vintzileos AM; Guzman ER
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2001 Sep; 18(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 11555453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Fetal biometry at 4300 m compared to sea level in Peru.
    Krampl E; Lees C; Bland JM; Espinoza Dorado J; Moscoso G; Campbell S
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Jul; 16(1):9-18. PubMed ID: 11084959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. [Value of echotomographic measurement of the diameter of the head and abdomen and the length of the femur in the determination of body mass in neonates].
    Stanković A
    Glas Srp Akad Nauka Med; 1991; (40):71-6. PubMed ID: 1916431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements.
    Hadlock FP; Harrist RB; Carpenter RJ; Deter RL; Park SK
    Radiology; 1984 Feb; 150(2):535-40. PubMed ID: 6691115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Differences in fat and lean mass proportions in normal and growth-restricted fetuses.
    Padoan A; Rigano S; Ferrazzi E; Beaty BL; Battaglia FC; Galan HL
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Oct; 191(4):1459-64. PubMed ID: 15507983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Continuous independent quality control for fetal ultrasound biometry provided by the cumulative summation technique.
    Balsyte D; Schäffer L; Burkhardt T; Wisser J; Zimmermann R; Kurmanavicius J
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2010 Apr; 35(4):449-55. PubMed ID: 20052663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Fetal size and growth velocity in chronic hypertension.
    Frusca T; Parolini S; Dall'Asta A; Hassan WA; Vitulo A; Gillett A; Pasupathy D; Lees CC
    Pregnancy Hypertens; 2017 Oct; 10():101-106. PubMed ID: 29153660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Fractional spine length: a new parameter for assessing fetal growth.
    Li DF; Woo JS
    J Ultrasound Med; 1986 Jul; 5(7):379-83. PubMed ID: 3522928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A longitudinal study of normal fetal femur volume.
    Ioannou C; Sarris I; Napolitano R; Ohuma E; Javaid MK; Papageorghiou AT
    Prenat Diagn; 2013 Nov; 33(11):1088-94. PubMed ID: 23868615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [The use of Rossavik's mathematical model in determining individual intrauterine growth curves. Our experience].
    Biagiotti R; Brizzi L; Cariati E; Puliga AS; Nannini R
    Minerva Ginecol; 1994 Mar; 46(3):81-4. PubMed ID: 8015703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Sex-specific antenatal reference growth charts for uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at 15-40 weeks of gestation.
    Schwärzler P; Bland JM; Holden D; Campbell S; Ville Y
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jan; 23(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 14970994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. An investigation of fetal growth using serial ultrasound data.
    Gallivan S; Robson SC; Chang TC; Vaughan J; Spencer JA
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Mar; 3(2):109-14. PubMed ID: 12797303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Measurement error for ultrasound fetal biometry performed by paramedics in rural Bangladesh.
    Neufeld LM; Wagatsuma Y; Hussain R; Begum M; Frongillo EA
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Oct; 34(4):387-94. PubMed ID: 19504627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Automated ultrasonographic measurement of basic fetal growth parameters.
    Pashaj S; Merz E; Petrela E
    Ultraschall Med; 2013 Apr; 34(2):137-44. PubMed ID: 23129519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length.
    Chitty LS; Altman DG; Henderson A; Campbell S
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):132-5. PubMed ID: 8305387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Fetal ultrasound biometry for pregnant population in the County of Primorje-Gorski Kotar (Croatia).
    Frančišković V; Zaputović S; Krajina R; Petrović O
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2011 Oct; 24(10):1277-82. PubMed ID: 21265720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [Comparative value of transverse abdominal diameter and fetal abdominal perimeter. 3844 biometric examinations].
    Grangé G; Favre R; Goffinet F; Heim N; Peterschmitt C; Kohler A; Gutedel A; Nisand I
    J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 1995; 24(8):843-9. PubMed ID: 8636619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Prediction of fetal macrosomia by single ultrasonic fetal biometry.
    Chen CP; Chang FM; Chang CH; Lin YS; Chou CY; Ko HC
    J Formos Med Assoc; 1993 Jan; 92(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 8099822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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