109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19576377)
1. Prediction of risk for cesarean delivery in term nulliparas: a comparison of neural network and multiple logistic regression models.
Al Housseini A; Newman T; Cox A; Devoe LD
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Jul; 201(1):113.e1-6. PubMed ID: 19576377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Antepartum and intrapartum prediction of cesarean need: risk scoring in singleton pregnancies.
Hin LY; Lau TK; Rogers M; Chang AM
Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Aug; 90(2):183-6. PubMed ID: 9241289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Why are cesarean delivery rates so high in diabetic pregnancies?
Blackwell SC; Hassan SS; Wolfe HW; Michaelson J; Berry SM; Sorokin Y
J Perinat Med; 2000; 28(4):316-20. PubMed ID: 11031703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fetal station at the time of labour arrest and risk of caesarean delivery.
Oboro VO; Tabowei TO; Bosah JO
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2005 Jan; 25(1):20-2. PubMed ID: 16147687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Combined logistic and Bayesian modeling of cesarean section risk.
Smith GC; Dellens M; White IR; Pell JP
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Dec; 191(6):2029-34. PubMed ID: 15592287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The distribution and predictive value of Bishop scores in nulliparas between 37 and 42 weeks gestation.
Nielsen PE; Howard BC; Crabtree T; Batig AL; Pates JA
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2012 Mar; 25(3):281-5. PubMed ID: 21696336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fetal trauma in term pregnancy.
Baskett TF; Allen VM; O'Connell CM; Allen AC
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Nov; 197(5):499.e1-7. PubMed ID: 17980187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in the supine and upright positions versus Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor at term.
Meijer-Hoogeveen M; Roos C; Arabin B; Stoutenbeek P; Visser GH
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Feb; 33(2):213-20. PubMed ID: 19173229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Development and validation of a nomogram to predict the risk of cesarean delivery in macrosomia.
Mazouni C; Rouzier R; Collette E; Menard JP; Magnin G; Gamerre M; Deter R
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2008; 87(5):518-23. PubMed ID: 18446534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Predicting cesarean delivery with decision tree models.
Sims CJ; Meyn L; Caruana R; Rao RB; Mitchell T; Krohn M
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Nov; 183(5):1198-206. PubMed ID: 11084566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validation of risk scoring scheme for cesarean delivery due to cephalopelvic disproportion in Lamphun Hospital.
Khunpradit S; Patumanond J; Tawichasri C
J Med Assoc Thai; 2006 Oct; 89 Suppl 4():S163-8. PubMed ID: 17726817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk factors for cesarean delivery at presentation of nulliparous patients in labor.
Wilkes PT; Wolf DM; Kronbach DW; Kunze M; Gibbs RS
Obstet Gynecol; 2003 Dec; 102(6):1352-7. PubMed ID: 14662226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Defining an at-risk population for obstetric anal sphincter laceration.
Minaglia SM; Kimata C; Soules KA; Pappas T; Oyama IA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Nov; 201(5):526.e1-6. PubMed ID: 19762002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network cesarean registry: impact of shift change on cesarean complications.
Bailit JL; Landon MB; Lai Y; Rouse DJ; Spong CY; Varner MW; Moawad AH; Simhan HN; Harper M; Wapner RJ; Sorokin Y; Miodovnik M; O'Sullivan MJ; Sibai BM; Langer O;
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Feb; 198(2):173.e1-5. PubMed ID: 18226616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery in a population-based study of low-risk pregnancies.
Farchi S; Di Lallo D; Franco F; Polo A; Lucchini R; Calzolari F; De Curtis M
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2009; 88(6):729-32. PubMed ID: 19274494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Rising cesarean rates: are patients sicker?
Bailit JL; Love TE; Mercer B
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Sep; 191(3):800-3. PubMed ID: 15467544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis.
Clock C; Kurtzman J; White J; Chung JH
J Perinatol; 2009 Feb; 29(2):96-100. PubMed ID: 19129796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.
Grobman WA; Lai Y; Landon MB; Spong CY; Leveno KJ; Rouse DJ; Varner MW; Moawad AH; Caritis SN; Harper M; Wapner RJ; Sorokin Y; Miodovnik M; Carpenter M; O'Sullivan MJ; Sibai BM; Langer O; Thorp JM; Ramin SM; Mercer BM;
Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Apr; 109(4):806-12. PubMed ID: 17400840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The impact of duration of labor induction on cesarean rate.
Michelson KA; Carr DB; Easterling TR
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 199(3):299.e1-4. PubMed ID: 18771990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. External cephalic version with salbutamol - success rate and predictors of success.
Tasnim N; Mahmud G; Khurshid M
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2009 Feb; 19(2):91-4. PubMed ID: 19208311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
