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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2667628)

  • 1. North Staffordshire/Wigan assisted delivery trial.
    Johanson R; Pusey J; Livera N; Jones P
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1989 May; 96(5):537-44. PubMed ID: 2667628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A randomised prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus vacuum extraction using defined criteria.
    Weerasekera DS; Premaratne S
    J Obstet Gynaecol; 2002 Jul; 22(4):344-5. PubMed ID: 12521450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A multicentre randomized trial comparing delivery with a silicone rubber cup and rigid metal vacuum extractor cups.
    Cohn M; Barclay C; Fraser R; Zaklama M; Johanson R; Anderson D; Walker C
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1989 May; 96(5):545-51. PubMed ID: 2667629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Maternal and neonatal morbidity in instrumental deliveries with the Kobayashi vacuum extractor and low forceps.
    Meyer L; Mailloux J; Marcoux S; Blanchet P; Meyer F
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1987; 66(7):643-7. PubMed ID: 3439447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Portsmouth operative delivery trial: a comparison vacuum extraction and forceps delivery.
    Vacca A; Grant A; Wyatt G; Chalmers I
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1983 Dec; 90(12):1107-12. PubMed ID: 6652049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Soft cup vacuum extraction: a comparison of outlet delivery.
    Dell DL; Sightler SE; Plauché WC
    Obstet Gynecol; 1985 Nov; 66(5):624-8. PubMed ID: 4058820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fetal and maternal effects of forceps and vacuum extraction.
    Punnonen R; Aro P; Kuukankorpi A; Pystynen P
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1986 Nov; 93(11):1132-5. PubMed ID: 3778846
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians.
    Vayssière C; Beucher G; Dupuis O; Feraud O; Simon-Toulza C; Sentilhes L; Meunier E; Parant O; Schmitz T; Riethmuller D; Baud O; Galley-Raulin F; Diemunsch P; Pierre F; Schaal JP; Fournié A; Oury JF;
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2011 Nov; 159(1):43-8. PubMed ID: 21802193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Kielland's forceps or ventouse--a comparison.
    Herabutya Y; O-Prasertsawat P; Boonrangsimant P
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1988 May; 95(5):483-7. PubMed ID: 3401434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity.
    Lurie S; Sadan O; Golan A
    Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Feb; 107(2 Pt 1):426-7; author reply 427. PubMed ID: 16449136
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The vacuum extractor for obstetric delivery.
    Halme J; Ekbladh L
    Clin Obstet Gynecol; 1982 Mar; 25(1):167-75. PubMed ID: 7067197
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Risk factors and morbidity associated with suboptimal instrument placement at instrumental delivery: observational study nested within the Instrumental Delivery & Ultrasound randomised controlled trial ISRCTN 72230496.
    Ramphul M; Kennelly MM; Burke G; Murphy DJ
    BJOG; 2015 Mar; 122(4):558-63. PubMed ID: 25414081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to the instrument used for mid-cavity rotational operative vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study.
    Bahl R; Van de Venne M; Macleod M; Strachan B; Murphy DJ
    BJOG; 2013 Nov; 120(12):1526-32. PubMed ID: 23924292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Neonatal and maternal complications among pregnant women delivered by vacuum extraction or forceps extraction.
    Kovavisarach E; Varanuntakul T
    J Med Assoc Thai; 1999 Apr; 82(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 10410490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Forceps or vacuum extraction: a comparison of maternal and neonatal morbidity.
    Shihadeh A; Al-Najdawi W
    East Mediterr Health J; 2001; 7(1-2):106-14. PubMed ID: 12596959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Maternal and neonatal outcome after failed ventouse delivery: comparison of forceps versus cesarean section.
    Bhide A; Guven M; Prefumo F; Vankalayapati P; Thilaganathan B
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2007 Jul; 20(7):541-5. PubMed ID: 17674268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery.
    O'Mahony F; Hofmeyr GJ; Menon V
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2010 Nov; (11):CD005455. PubMed ID: 21069686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cohort study of silastic obstetric vacuum cup deliveries: I. Safety of the instrument.
    Berkus MD; Ramamurthy RS; O'Connor PS; Brown K; Hayashi RH
    Obstet Gynecol; 1985 Oct; 66(4):503-9. PubMed ID: 3900836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Failed individual and sequential instrumental vaginal delivery: contributing risk factors and maternal-neonatal complications.
    Al-Kadri H; Sabr Y; Al-Saif S; Abulaimoun B; Ba'Aqeel H; Saleh A
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2003 Jul; 82(7):642-8. PubMed ID: 12790846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [A comparison of forceps and vacuum extraction delivery (author's transl)].
    Schaller A; Schramm M
    Wien Klin Wochenschr; 1974 Feb; 86(3):61-5. PubMed ID: 4439937
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.