348 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20052663)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Continuous independent quality control for fetal nuchal translucency measurements provided by the cumulative summation technique.
Balsyte D; Schäffer L; Burkhardt T; Wisser J; Krafft A; Kurmanavicius J
Ultraschall Med; 2011 Dec; 32 Suppl 2():E141-6. PubMed ID: 21877321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis in the assessment of trainee competence in fetal biometry measurement.
Weerasinghe S; Mirghani H; Revel A; Abu-Zidan FM
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Aug; 28(2):199-203. PubMed ID: 16858722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Standardization of fetal ultrasound biometry measurements: improving the quality and consistency of measurements.
Sarris I; Ioannou C; Dighe M; Mitidieri A; Oberto M; Qingqing W; Shah J; Sohoni S; Al Zidjali W; Hoch L; Altman DG; Papageorghiou AT;
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Dec; 38(6):681-7. PubMed ID: 22411446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Estimating birth weight in twins. Comparison of eight sonographic models.
Chauhan SP; Cowan BD; Brost BD; Washburne JF; Magann EF; Morrison JC
J Reprod Med; 1996 Jun; 41(6):403-8. PubMed ID: 8799915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Good accuracy of ultrasound estimations of fetal weight performed by midwives.
Mattsson N; Rosendahl H; Luukkaala T
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2007; 86(6):688-92. PubMed ID: 17520400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Longitudinal z Score Distribution in Sonographic Fetal Biometry: Influence of Examiner and Experience.
Faschingbauer F; Heimrich J; Raabe E; Kehl S; Schneider M; Schmid M; Beckmann MW; Schild RL; Mayr A
J Ultrasound Med; 2017 May; 36(5):1021-1028. PubMed ID: 28258637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Value of a single early third trimester fetal biometry for the prediction of birth weight deviations in a low risk population.
De Reu PA; Smits LJ; Oosterbaan HP; Nijhuis JG
J Perinat Med; 2008; 36(4):324-9. PubMed ID: 18598122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Weight estimation by three-dimensional ultrasound imaging in the small fetus.
Schild RL; Maringa M; Siemer J; Meurer B; Hart N; Goecke TW; Schmid M; Hothorn T; Hansmann ME
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Aug; 32(2):168-75. PubMed ID: 18663765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fetal weight estimation by ultrasound: comparison of 11 different formulae and examiners with differing skill levels.
Siemer J; Egger N; Hart N; Meurer B; Müller A; Dathe O; Goecke T; Schild RL
Ultraschall Med; 2008 Apr; 29(2):159-64. PubMed ID: 17602369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. What are the limits of accuracy in fetal weight estimation with conventional biometry in two-dimensional ultrasound? A novel postpartum study.
Kehl S; Schmidt U; Spaich S; Schild RL; Sütterlin M; Siemer J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2012 May; 39(5):543-8. PubMed ID: 21898638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Longitudinal Assessment of Examiner Experience and the Accuracy of Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation at Term.
Faschingbauer F; Heimrich J; Raabe E; Kehl S; Schneider M; Schmid M; Beckmann MW; Hepp T; Lübke A; Mayr A; Schild RL
J Ultrasound Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):163-174. PubMed ID: 27914178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Ultrasonographic assessment of growth and estimation of birthweight in late gestation fetal sheep.
Carr DJ; Aitken RP; Milne JS; David AL; Wallace JM
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2011 Oct; 37(10):1588-95. PubMed ID: 21821347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Sonographic biometrical normograms and estimation of fetal weight in the baboon (Papio anubis).
Van Calsteren K; de Catte L; Devlieger R; Chai DC; Amant F
J Med Primatol; 2009 Oct; 38(5):321-7. PubMed ID: 19594664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
