234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24357339)
21. Inter-observer variability in fetal biometric measurements.
Kilani R; Aleyadeh W; Atieleh LA; Al Suleimat AM; Khadra M; Hawamdeh HM
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Feb; 57(1):32-39. PubMed ID: 29458900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Comparison between trans-vaginal and trans-abdominal ultrasound examination of the cervix in the second trimester of pregnancy: a prospective study.
Calandra D; Mercaldi M; De Vito M; Buca D; Liberati M; Lucidi A; Rizzo G; D'Antonio F
J Perinat Med; 2024 Jan; 52(1):76-80. PubMed ID: 37942777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and generalizability of first trimester uterine artery pulsatility index by transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound.
Marchi L; Zwertbroek E; Snelder J; Kloosterman M; Bilardo CM
Prenat Diagn; 2016 Dec; 36(13):1261-1269. PubMed ID: 27862084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Sonographic prediction of gestational age: accuracy of second- and third-trimester fetal measurements.
Benson CB; Doubilet PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Dec; 157(6):1275-7. PubMed ID: 1950881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. The use of inversion mode and 3D manual segmentation in volume measurement of fetal fluid-filled structures: comparison with Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis (VOCAL).
Kusanovic JP; Nien JK; Gonçalves LF; Espinoza J; Lee W; Balasubramaniam M; Soto E; Erez O; Romero R
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Feb; 31(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 18254130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Accuracy of automated three-dimensional ultrasound imaging technique for fetal head biometry.
Pluym ID; Afshar Y; Holliman K; Kwan L; Bolagani A; Mok T; Silver B; Ramirez E; Han CS; Platt LD
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2021 May; 57(5):798-803. PubMed ID: 32770786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Femur length versus biparietal diameter for estimating gestational age in the third trimester.
Egley CC; Seeds JW; Cefalo RC
Am J Perinatol; 1986 Apr; 3(2):77-9. PubMed ID: 3516170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Individualized growth assessment of fetal thigh circumference using three-dimensional ultrasonography.
Lee W; Deter RL; Sameera S; Espinoza J; Gonçalves LF; Romero R
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 May; 31(5):520-8. PubMed ID: 18389488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Comparison between transcerebellar diameter with biparietal diameter of ultrasound for gestational age measurement in third trimester of pregnancy.
Naseem F; Fatima N; Yasmeen S; Saleem S
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2013 May; 23(5):322-5. PubMed ID: 23673169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [A proposed protocol for obstetrical ultrasound examination].
Novakov A; Vejnović T; Stojić S; Belopavlović Z
Med Pregl; 1999; 52(9-10):351-6. PubMed ID: 10624383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH-21
Cavallaro A; Ash ST; Napolitano R; Wanyonyi S; Ohuma EO; Molloholli M; Sande J; Sarris I; Ioannou C; Norris T; Donadono V; Carvalho M; Purwar M; Barros FC; Jaffer YA; Bertino E; Pang R; Gravett MG; Salomon LJ; Noble JA; Altman DG; Papageorghiou AT
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Sep; 52(3):332-339. PubMed ID: 28718938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Magnetic resonance imaging vs. transvaginal ultrasound for cervical length assessment in the second half of pregnancy.
Brandão RS; Pires CR; de Souza E; Avanza LL; Mattar R; Araujo Júnior E; Nardozza LM; Moron AF
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2010 Apr; 36(4):571-5. PubMed ID: 20350684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Which ultrasound or biochemical markers are independent predictors of small-for-gestational age?
Law LW; Leung TY; Sahota DS; Chan LW; Fung TY; Lau TK
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Sep; 34(3):283-7. PubMed ID: 19670336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A Crossover Comparison of Standard and Telerobotic Approaches to Prenatal Sonography.
Adams SJ; Burbridge BE; Badea A; Kanigan N; Bustamante L; Babyn P; Mendez I
J Ultrasound Med; 2018 Nov; 37(11):2603-2612. PubMed ID: 29689632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A prospective blinded comparison of second trimester fetal measurements by expert and novice readers using low-cost novice-acquired 3D volumetric ultrasound.
Salinaro JR; McNally PJ; Nickenig Vissoci JR; Ellestad SC; Nelson B; Broder JS
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2021 Jun; 34(11):1805-1813. PubMed ID: 31352874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
