373 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26922481)
1. Variation in primary cesarean delivery rates by individual physician within a single-hospital laborist model.
Metz TD; Allshouse AA; Gilbert SAB; Doyle R; Tong A; Carey JC
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Apr; 214(4):531.e1-531.e6. PubMed ID: 26922481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Do laborists improve delivery outcomes for laboring women in California community hospitals?
Feldman DS; Bollman DL; Fridman M; Korst LM; El Haj Ibrahim S; Fink A; Gregory KD
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Oct; 213(4):587.e1-587.e13. PubMed ID: 26026921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery.
Iriye BK; Huang WH; Condon J; Hancock L; Hancock JK; Ghamsary M; Garite TJ
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Sep; 209(3):251.e1-6. PubMed ID: 23904102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluating the impact of the laborist model of obstetric care on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Srinivas SK; Small DS; Macheras M; Hsu JY; Caldwell D; Lorch S
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Dec; 215(6):770.e1-770.e9. PubMed ID: 27530491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
Thuillier C; Roy S; Peyronnet V; Quibel T; Nlandu A; Rozenberg P
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Mar; 218(3):341.e1-341.e9. PubMed ID: 29291413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sonographic large fetal head circumference and risk of cesarean delivery.
Lipschuetz M; Cohen SM; Israel A; Baron J; Porat S; Valsky DV; Yagel O; Amsalem H; Kabiri D; Gilboa Y; Sivan E; Unger R; Schiff E; Hershkovitz R; Yagel S
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Mar; 218(3):339.e1-339.e7. PubMed ID: 29305249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Two practice models in one labor and delivery unit: association with cesarean delivery rates.
Nijagal MA; Kuppermann M; Nakagawa S; Cheng Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Apr; 212(4):491.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25446697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Zipori Y; Grunwald O; Ginsberg Y; Beloosesky R; Weiner Z
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Feb; 220(2):191.e1-191.e7. PubMed ID: 30616966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Hospital variation in cesarean delivery rates: contribution of individual and hospital factors in Florida.
Sebastião YV; Womack L; Vamos CA; Louis JM; Olaoye F; Caragan T; Bubu OM; Detman LA; Curran JS; Sappenfield WM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Jan; 214(1):123.e1-123.e18. PubMed ID: 26292046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines.
Gimovsky AC; Berghella V
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Mar; 214(3):361.e1-6. PubMed ID: 26928148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Nulliparous Women in the Second Stage of Labor: Changes in Delivery Outcomes Between Two Cohorts From 2000 and 2011.
Fitzwater JL; Owen J; Ankumah NA; Campbell SB; Biggio JR; Szychowski JM; Edwards RK
Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Jul; 126(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 26241260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Term spontaneous trial of labor in nulliparous women of short stature: A hospitals-based cohort study.
Boujenah J; Carbillon L; Banh P; Sibony O; Korb D
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2020 Mar; 246():181-186. PubMed ID: 32007340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.
Vrouenraets FP; Roumen FJ; Dehing CJ; van den Akker ES; Aarts MJ; Scheve EJ
Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Apr; 105(4):690-7. PubMed ID: 15802392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Collaborative Laborist and Midwifery Model: An Accepted and Sustainable Model.
Krolikowski-Ulmer K; Watson TJ; Westhoff EM; Ashmore SL; Thompson PA; Landeen LB
S D Med; 2018 Dec; 71(12):534-537. PubMed ID: 30835985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Association between provider type and cesarean birth in healthy nulliparous laboring women: A retrospective cohort study.
Carlson NS; Corwin EJ; Hernandez TL; Holt E; Lowe NK; Hurt KJ
Birth; 2018 Jun; 45(2):159-168. PubMed ID: 29388247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of obstetrical outcomes with labor induction agents used at term.
Aghideh FK; Mullin PM; Ingles S; Ouzounian JG; Opper N; Wilson ML; Miller DA; Lee RH
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2014 Apr; 27(6):592-6. PubMed ID: 23919802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Incidence and outcomes of dystocia in the active phase of labor in term nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset.
Kjaergaard H; Olsen J; Ottesen B; Dykes AK
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2009; 88(4):402-7. PubMed ID: 19330572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Cheng YW; Hopkins LM; Laros RK; Caughey AB
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Jun; 196(6):585.e1-6. PubMed ID: 17547906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Hospital-Level Variation in the Frequency of Cesarean Delivery Among Nulliparous Women Who Undergo Labor Induction.
Main EK; Chang SC; Cheng YW; Rosenstein MG; Lagrew DC
Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Dec; 136(6):1179-1189. PubMed ID: 33156193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Influence of Academic Hospitalists on Labor and Delivery Outcomes.
Corey J; Cuartas K; Leidlein C; Pineles B; Wagner S
Gynecol Obstet Invest; 2020; 85(4):352-356. PubMed ID: 32516793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
