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 *

413 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24105705)

  • 61. Relationship between fetal head station established using an open magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the angle of progression determined by transperineal ultrasound.
    Bamberg C; Scheuermann S; Slowinski T; Dückelmann AM; Vogt M; Nguyen-Dobinsky TN; Streitparth F; Teichgräber U; Henrich W; Dudenhausen JW; Kalache KD
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Jun; 37(6):712-6. PubMed ID: 21308830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Sonographic assessment of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor: how reliable is the transperineal approach?
    Ghi T; Bellussi F; Eggebø T; Tondi F; Pacella G; Salsi G; Cariello L; Piastra A; Youssef A; Pilu G; Rizzo N
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2015 Nov; 28(16):1985-8. PubMed ID: 25316562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor.
    Chor CM; Poon LCY; Leung TY
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2019 Jan; 32(1):31-37. PubMed ID: 28819985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Fetal head circumference and subpubic angle are independent risk factors for unplanned cesarean and operative delivery.
    Rizzo G; Aiello E; Bosi C; D'Antonio F; Arduini D
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2017 Aug; 96(8):1006-1011. PubMed ID: 28449356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Uncertain fetal head engagement: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing digital exam with angle of progression.
    Haumonte JB; Blanc J; Castel P; Mace P; Auquier P; d'Ercole C; Bretelle F
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Oct; 227(4):625.e1-625.e8. PubMed ID: 35452654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound.
    Barbera AF; Pombar X; Perugino G; Lezotte DC; Hobbins JC
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Mar; 33(3):313-9. PubMed ID: 19248000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Intrapartum ultrasound use in clinical practice as a predictor of delivery mode during prolonged second stage of labor.
    Katzir T; Brezinov Y; Khairish E; Hadad S; Vaisbuch E; Levy R
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2023 Mar; 307(3):763-770. PubMed ID: 35576076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Agreement between two- and three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound methods for assessment of fetal head-symphysis distance in active labor.
    Youssef A; Bellussi F; Montaguti E; Maroni E; Salsi G; Morselli-Labate AM; Paccapelo A; Rizzo N; Pilu G; Ghi T
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Feb; 43(2):183-8. PubMed ID: 24006290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Pubic arch angle in prolonged second stage of labor: clinical significance.
    Gilboa Y; Kivilevitch Z; Spira M; Kedem A; Katorza E; Moran O; Achiron R
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Apr; 41(4):442-6. PubMed ID: 23001876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Fetal head progression and regression on maternal pushing at term and labor outcome.
    Youssef A; Brunelli E; Azzarone C; Di Donna G; Casadio P; Pilu G
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Jul; 58(1):105-110. PubMed ID: 32730691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Evaluation of sonographic assessment of the progress of labor.
    Głuszak M; Dziadecki W; Wielgoś M; Węgrzyn P
    Ginekol Pol; 2015 Feb; 86(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 25807837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. [The diagnosis of fetal head engagement: transperineal ultrasound, a new useful tool?].
    Rivaux G; Dedet B; Delarue E; Depret S; Closset E; Deruelle P
    Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2012 Mar; 40(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 22018845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Ultrasonographic occiput position in early labour in the prediction of caesarean section.
    Akmal S; Kametas N; Tsoi E; Howard R; Nicolaides KH
    BJOG; 2004 Jun; 111(6):532-6. PubMed ID: 15198779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Ultrasound examination at term for predicting the outcome of delivery in women with a previous cesarean section.
    Comas M; Cochs B; Martí L; Ruiz R; Maireles S; Costa J; Canet Y
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2016 Dec; 29(23):3870-4. PubMed ID: 26833253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Use of the angle of progression on ultrasonography to predict spontaneous onset of labor within 7 days.
    Cho GJ; Hong HR; Seol HJ; Koo BH; Hong SC; Oh MJ; Kim HJ
    J Perinat Med; 2015 Mar; 43(2):185-9. PubMed ID: 24937504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Head-to-perineum distance measured transperineally as a predictor of failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery.
    Nallet C; Ramirez Zegarra R; Mazellier S; Dall'asta A; Puyraveau M; Lallemant M; Ramanah R; Riethmuller D; Ghi T; Mottet N
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2023 Feb; 5(2):100827. PubMed ID: 36464238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. [Ultrasonographic score for predicting vaginal delivery within 24h of induction: a pilot study].
    Ancel J; Huissoud C
    Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2015 Mar; 43(3):256-61. PubMed ID: 25727164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Visual biofeedback using transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor.
    Gilboa Y; Frenkel TI; Schlesinger Y; Rousseau S; Hamiel D; Achiron R; Perlman S
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jul; 52(1):91-96. PubMed ID: 29155474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal head progression in active second stage of labor and mode of delivery.
    Ghi T; Youssef A; Maroni E; Arcangeli T; De Musso F; Bellussi F; Nanni M; Giorgetta F; Morselli-Labate AM; Iammarino MT; Paccapelo A; Cariello L; Rizzo N; Pilu G
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Apr; 41(4):430-5. PubMed ID: 23288706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score?
    Eggebø TM; Økland I; Heien C; Gjessing LK; Romundstad P; Salvesen KA
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2009; 88(3):325-31. PubMed ID: 19172418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.