293 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19672790)
1. A validation of electrohysterography for uterine activity monitoring during labour.
Jacod BC; Graatsma EM; Van Hagen E; Visser GH
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2010 Jan; 23(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 19672790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Electrohysterography for uterine monitoring during term labour compared to external tocodynamometry and intra-uterine pressure catheter.
Vlemminx MWC; Thijssen KMJ; Bajlekov GI; Dieleman JP; Van Der Hout-Van Der Jagt MB; Oei SG
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2017 Aug; 215():197-205. PubMed ID: 28649034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Qualitative assessment of interpretability and observer agreement of three uterine monitoring techniques.
Thijssen KMJ; Tissink JGLJ; Dieleman JP; Van der Hout-van der Jagt MB; Westerhuis MEMH; Oei SG
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2020 Dec; 255():142-146. PubMed ID: 33129016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prediction of intrauterine pressure waveform from transabdominal electrohysterography.
Euliano T; Skowronski M; Marossero D; Shuster J; Edwards R
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2006 Dec; 19(12):811-6. PubMed ID: 17190691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Electrohysterography during pregnancy: preliminary report.
Gondry J; Marque C; Duchene J; Cabrol D
Biomed Instrum Technol; 1993; 27(4):318-24. PubMed ID: 8369867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Prognostic value of chosen parameters of mechanical and bioelectrical uterine activity in prediction of threatening preterm labour].
Zietek J; Sikora J; Horoba K; Matonia A; Jezewski J; Magnucki J; Kobielska L
Ginekol Pol; 2009 Mar; 80(3):193-200. PubMed ID: 19382611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical Use of Electrohysterography During Term Labor: A Systematic Review on Diagnostic Value, Advantages, and Limitations.
Vlemminx MWC; Rabotti C; van der Hout-van der Jagt MB; Oei SG
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2018 May; 73(5):303-324. PubMed ID: 29850920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods.
Euliano TY; Nguyen MT; Darmanjian S; McGorray SP; Euliano N; Onkala A; Gregg AR
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Jan; 208(1):66.e1-6. PubMed ID: 23122926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Automated electrohysterographic detection of uterine contractions for monitoring of pregnancy: feasibility and prospects.
Muszynski C; Happillon T; Azudin K; Tylcz JB; Istrate D; Marque C
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2018 May; 18(1):136. PubMed ID: 29739438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Electrohysterography. A promising alternative for monitoring contractions].
Vlemminx MW; de Lau H; Vullings R; Peters CH; Oei SG
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2015; 159():A8535. PubMed ID: 25650036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison between electrical uterine monitor, tocodynamometer and intra uterine pressure catheter for uterine activity in labor.
Hadar E; Biron-Shental T; Gavish O; Raban O; Yogev Y
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2015 Aug; 28(12):1367-74. PubMed ID: 25123517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Correlation of external and internal monitoring of uterine activity in a cohort of term patients.
Miles AM; Monga M; Richeson KS
Am J Perinatol; 2001 May; 18(3):137-40. PubMed ID: 11414523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of surface acquired uterine electromyography and intrauterine pressure catheter to assess uterine activity.
Haran G; Elbaz M; Fejgin MD; Biron-Shental T
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2012 May; 206(5):412.e1-5. PubMed ID: 22284960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Monitoring Uterine Activity during Labor: Clinician Interpretation of Electrohysterography versus Intrauterine Pressure Catheter and Tocodynamometry.
Euliano TY; Nguyen MT; Darmanjian S; Busowski JD; Euliano N; Gregg AR
Am J Perinatol; 2016 Jul; 33(9):831-8. PubMed ID: 26960704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Multi-channel electrohysterography enabled uterine contraction characterization and its effect in delivery assessment.
Shen J; Liu Y; Zhang M; Pumir A; Mu L; Li B; Xu J
Comput Biol Med; 2023 Dec; 167():107697. PubMed ID: 37976821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Relationship of measured external tocodynamometry with measured internal uterine activity.
Paul MJ; Smeltzer JS
Am J Perinatol; 1991 Nov; 8(6):417-20. PubMed ID: 1814307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimation of internal uterine pressure by joint amplitude and frequency analysis of electrohysterographic signals.
Rabotti C; Mischi M; van Laar JO; Oei GS; Bergmans JW
Physiol Meas; 2008 Jul; 29(7):829-41. PubMed ID: 18583724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Mechanical and electrical uterine activity. Part I. Contractions monitoring].
Zietek J; Sikora J; Horoba K; Matonia A; Jezewski J; Magnucki J; Kobielska L
Ginekol Pol; 2008 Nov; 79(11):791-7. PubMed ID: 19140504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Mechanical and electrical uterine activity. Part II. Contractions parameters].
Zietek J; Sikora J; Horoba K; Matonia A; Jezewski J; Magnucki J; Kobielska L
Ginekol Pol; 2008 Nov; 79(11):798-804. PubMed ID: 19140505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Myometrium electromechanical modeling for internal uterine pressure estimation by electrohysterography.
Rabotti C; Mischi M; van Laar JO; Oei SG; Bergmans JW
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2009; 2009():6259-62. PubMed ID: 19963667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
