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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25303725)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Digital and transvaginal ultrasound cervical assessment for prediction of successful labor induction.
    Tanir HM; Sener T; Yildiz Z
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2008 Jan; 100(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 17920604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Predictors of newborn admission after labour induction at term: Bishop score, pre-induction ultrasonography and clinical risk factors.
    Tan PC; Suguna S; Vallikkannu N; Hassan J
    Singapore Med J; 2008 Mar; 49(3):193-8. PubMed ID: 18362999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The role of ultrasound and fetal fibronectin in predicting the length of induced labor when the cervix is unfavorable.
    Roman H; Verspyck E; Vercoustre L; Degre S; Col JY; Firmin JM; Caron P; Marpeau L
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jun; 23(6):567-73. PubMed ID: 15170797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of the cervix for predicting time to spontaneous onset of labor and time to delivery in prolonged pregnancy.
    Rovas L; Sladkevicius P; Strobel E; De Smet F; De Moor B; Valentin L
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Sep; 28(3):306-11. PubMed ID: 16817172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Cervical assessment at 22 and 27 weeks for the prediction of spontaneous birth before 34 weeks in twin pregnancies: is transvaginal sonography more accurate than digital examination?
    Vayssière C; Favre R; Audibert F; Chauvet MP; Gaucherand P; Tardif D; Grangé G; Novoa A; Descamps P; Perdu M; Andrini E; Janse-Marec J; Maillard F; Nisand I;
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Dec; 26(7):707-12. PubMed ID: 16273595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery compared to bishop score: a cross-sectional study.
    Khazardoost S; Ghotbizadeh Vahdani F; Latifi S; Borna S; Tahani M; Rezaei MA; Shafaat M
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2016 Oct; 16(1):330. PubMed ID: 27793113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The role of sonographic cervical length in labor induction at term.
    Papillon-Smith J; Abenhaim HA
    J Clin Ultrasound; 2015 Jan; 43(1):7-16. PubMed ID: 25243838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Comparison of pre-induction ultrasonographic cervical length and Bishop score in predicting risk of cesarean section after labor induction with prostaglandins].
    Rozenberg P; Chevret S; Ville Y
    Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2005; 33(1-2):17-22. PubMed ID: 15752661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [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]  

  • 31. [Comparison of the Bishop score, of sonographic measurement of the cervical length and fibronectin determination in predicting time to delivery and the type of delivery at term].
    Rozenberg P; Goffinet F; Hessabi M
    Bull Acad Natl Med; 1999; 183(3):589-99; discussion 599-600. PubMed ID: 10437288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score.
    Gonen R; Degani S; Ron A
    Eur J Ultrasound; 1998 Aug; 7(3):183-7. PubMed ID: 9700213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial.
    Bartha JL; Romero-Carmona R; Martínez-Del-Fresno P; Comino-Delgado R
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Feb; 25(2):155-9. PubMed ID: 15660437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Comparison study on transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement and cytokine in prediction of the cervical ripening and the onset time of term labor].
    Jian L; Mu X; Wu W
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2002 Dec; 37(12):708-11. PubMed ID: 12622909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The value of the cervical score in predicting successful outcome of labor induction.
    Williams MC; Krammer J; O'Brien WF
    Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Nov; 90(5):784-9. PubMed ID: 9351765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Cervical ripening with a Foley catheter: the role of pre- and postripening ultrasound examination of the cervix.
    Cromi A; Ghezzi F; Tomera S; Scandroglio S; Colombo G; Bolis P
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Jan; 196(1):41.e1-7. PubMed ID: 17240227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Accuracy of the Manipal Cervical Scoring System for predicting successful induction of labour.
    Mohamed El Bishry G; Serag Allam I; Rasheedy R; Mahmoud A
    J Obstet Gynaecol; 2019 Nov; 39(8):1057-1064. PubMed ID: 31046494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Cervical ripening score by transperineal ultrasonography and its predictive effect for induction of labor by prostaglandin E2].
    Li Q; Zhang J; You Z
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 1998 Apr; 33(4):216-8. PubMed ID: 10682467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Elastography in the examination of the uterine cervix before labor induction].
    Preis K; Swiatkowska-Freund M; Pankrac Z
    Ginekol Pol; 2010 Oct; 81(10):757-61. PubMed ID: 21117304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Sonographic cervical length as a predictor of type of delivery after induced labor.
    Gómez-Laencina AM; García CP; Asensio LV; Ponce JA; Martínez MS; Martínez-Vizcaíno V
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2012 Jun; 285(6):1523-8. PubMed ID: 22198844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.