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 *

60 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2747995)

  • 21. Computerized analysis of fetal heart rate variability using the matching pursuit technique as an indicator of fetal hypoxia during labor.
    Salamalekis E; Hintipas E; Salloum I; Vasios G; Loghis C; Vitoratos N; Chrelias Ch; Creatsas G
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2006 Mar; 19(3):165-9. PubMed ID: 16690510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Evaluation of fetal well-being by vibro-acoustic stimulation test].
    Sun DW; Chen XX; Gai MY
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 1994 Jun; 29(6):322-4, 380. PubMed ID: 8001402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [The role of vibroacoustic stimulation in antenatal fetal assessment].
    Leis Marquez MT; Hernández Andrade E; Maya Goldsmit D; Pérez de la Huerta MI; López García RB
    Ginecol Obstet Mex; 1993 Dec; 61():356-9. PubMed ID: 8119607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [The non-stress versus stress test. Contraposition or integration? Role of fetal sound stimulation].
    Bouché M; Ravazzolo MP
    Minerva Ginecol; 1984 May; 36(5):251-8. PubMed ID: 6472719
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. VII. The impact of mode of delivery on fetal outcome.
    Krebs HB; Petres RE; Dunn LJ; Smith PJ
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1982 May; 143(2):190-4. PubMed ID: 7081332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Intrapartum fetal monitoring and results of the evaluation of the condition of the newborn infant].
    Staszewski A; Higier J; Kański A; Kaliński A
    Pol Tyg Lek; 1987 Sep; 42(37):1149-50. PubMed ID: 3432149
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile versus the nonstress test in the management of high-risk pregnancies.
    Platt LD; Walla CA; Paul RH; Trujillo ME; Loesser CV; Jacobs ND; Broussard PM
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1985 Nov; 153(6):624-33. PubMed ID: 4061530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The fetal monitoring polemic.
    Schifrin BS
    Clin Perinatol; 1982 Jun; 9(2):399-408. PubMed ID: 6749379
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Central fetal monitoring: effect on perinatal outcomes and cesarean section rate.
    Withiam-Leitch M; Shelton J; Fleming E
    Birth; 2006 Dec; 33(4):284-8. PubMed ID: 17150066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile.
    Nageotte MP; Towers CV; Asrat T; Freeman RK
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Jun; 170(6):1672-6. PubMed ID: 8203424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Prognostic value of cardiotocographic acoustic test in post-term pregnancies.
    Skretek M; Bielecki M; Zdanowicz A; Zabielan H
    Ann Med Univ Bialyst Pol; 1993; 38(1):79-85. PubMed ID: 7922491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Clinical analysis of continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring for preterm small for gestational age during labor].
    Guo XH; Su FM; Zhang HY
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2005 Feb; 40(2):106-8. PubMed ID: 15840290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN) for intrapartum monitoring.
    Westerhuis ME; Moons KG; van Beek E; Bijvoet SM; Drogtrop AP; van Geijn HP; van Lith JM; Mol BW; Nijhuis JG; Oei SG; Porath MM; Rijnders RJ; Schuitemaker NW; van der Tweel I; Visser GH; Willekes C; Kwee A
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2007 Jul; 7():13. PubMed ID: 17655764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nonstress test versus contraction stress test.
    Gratacos JA; Paul RH
    Clin Perinatol; 1980 Sep; 7(2):387-96. PubMed ID: 7438671
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical use of non-stressed in-patient antenatal cardiotocography.
    McKenna PJ
    Ir Med J; 1983 May; 76(5):245-6. PubMed ID: 6874303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Obstetric monitoring of the pregnant diabetic].
    Bovicelli L
    Minerva Endocrinol; 1994 Jun; 19(2):85-9. PubMed ID: 7968933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The effects of different maternal positions on non-stress test: an experimental study.
    Aluş M; Okumuş H; Mete S; Güçlü S
    J Clin Nurs; 2007 Mar; 16(3):562-8. PubMed ID: 17335532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Potentials of cardiotocography in assessing the antenatal risk in EPH gestoses].
    Bozhinova S
    Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 1984; 23(2):117-26. PubMed ID: 6742360
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Further experience with the fetal biophysical profile.
    Platt LD; Eglinton GS; Sipos L; Broussard PM; Paul RH
    Obstet Gynecol; 1983 Apr; 61(4):480-5. PubMed ID: 6681892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Fetal challenge tests and non-stress tests. An analysis and comparison of the possibilities of predicting perinatal problems].
    Neldam S; Hansen T; Jessen P
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1981 Dec; 143(51):3465-9. PubMed ID: 7336506
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.