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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31885099)

  • 1. Reducing caesarean delivery: An economic evaluation of routine induction of labour at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women.
    Callander EJ; Creedy DK; Gamble J; Fox H; Toohill J; Sneddon A; Ellwood D
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2020 Jan; 34(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 31885099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Hersh AR; Skeith AE; Sargent JA; Caughey AB
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Jun; 220(6):590.e1-590.e10. PubMed ID: 30768934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Influence of timing of admission in labour and management of labour on method of birth: results from a randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery (COSMOS trial).
    Davey MA; McLachlan HL; Forster D; Flood M
    Midwifery; 2013 Dec; 29(12):1297-302. PubMed ID: 23890679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery.
    Callander EJ; Slavin V; Gamble J; Creedy DK; Brittain H
    Int J Qual Health Care; 2021 May; 33(2):. PubMed ID: 33988712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study.
    Jepsen I; Juul S; Foureur MJ; Sørensen EE; Nohr EA
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2018 Dec; 18(1):481. PubMed ID: 30522453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.
    Tracy SK; Hartz DL; Tracy MB; Allen J; Forti A; Hall B; White J; Lainchbury A; Stapleton H; Beckmann M; Bisits A; Homer C; Foureur M; Welsh A; Kildea S
    Lancet; 2013 Nov; 382(9906):1723-32. PubMed ID: 24050808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.
    Tracy SK; Welsh A; Hall B; Hartz D; Lainchbury A; Bisits A; White J; Tracy MB
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2014 Jan; 14():46. PubMed ID: 24456576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Johri M; Ng ESW; Bermudez-Tamayo C; Hoch JS; Ducruet T; Chaillet N
    BMC Med; 2017 May; 15(1):96. PubMed ID: 28528578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial.
    McLachlan HL; Forster DA; Davey MA; Farrell T; Gold L; Biro MA; Albers L; Flood M; Oats J; Waldenström U
    BJOG; 2012 Nov; 119(12):1483-92. PubMed ID: 22830446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Predictors of perinatal outcomes and economic costs for late-term induction of labour.
    Oros D; Garcia-Simon R; Clemente J; Fabre E; Romero MA; Montañes A
    Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 56(3):286-290. PubMed ID: 28600035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A non-randomised trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of Midwifery Group Practice compared with standard maternity care arrangements in one Australian hospital.
    Toohill J; Turkstra E; Gamble J; Scuffham PA
    Midwifery; 2012 Dec; 28(6):e874-9. PubMed ID: 22172743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour at term with a Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E₂ gel (PROBAAT trial).
    van Baaren GJ; Jozwiak M; Opmeer BC; Oude Rengerink K; Benthem M; Dijksterhuis MG; van Huizen ME; van der Salm PC; Schuitemaker NW; Papatsonis DN; Perquin DA; Porath M; van der Post JA; Rijnders RJ; Scheepers HC; Spaanderman M; van Pampus MG; de Leeuw JW; Mol BW; Bloemenkamp KW
    BJOG; 2013 Jul; 120(8):987-95. PubMed ID: 23530729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Labour induction near term for women aged 35 or over: an economic evaluation.
    Walker KF; Dritsaki M; Bugg G; Macpherson M; McCormick C; Grace N; Wildsmith C; Bradshaw L; Smith G; Thornton JG
    BJOG; 2017 May; 124(6):929-934. PubMed ID: 28075507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks of gestation: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Alkmark M; Wennerholm UB; Saltvedt S; Bergh C; Carlsson Y; Elden H; Fadl H; Jonsson M; Ladfors L; Sengpiel V; Wesström J; Hagberg H; Svensson M
    BJOG; 2022 Dec; 129(13):2157-2165. PubMed ID: 34534404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reforming maternity services in Australia: Outcomes of a private practice midwifery service.
    Wilkes E; Gamble J; Adam G; Creedy DK
    Midwifery; 2015 Oct; 31(10):935-40. PubMed ID: 26092305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Trial of labour versus elective repeat caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Shorten A; Lewis DE; Shorten B
    Aust Health Rev; 1998; 21(1):8-28. PubMed ID: 10181675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Birth Outcomes for Midwifery Clients Who Begin Postdates Induction of Labour Under Midwifery Care Compared With Those Who Are Transferred to Obstetrical Care.
    Elderhorst E; Ahmed RJ; Hutton EK; Darling EK
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2019 Oct; 41(10):1444-1452. PubMed ID: 30712906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.
    Sandall J; Soltani H; Gates S; Shennan A; Devane D
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Sep; (9):CD004667. PubMed ID: 26370160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Alfirevic Z; Keeney E; Dowswell T; Welton NJ; Medley N; Dias S; Jones LV; Gyte G; Caldwell DM
    Health Technol Assess; 2016 Aug; 20(65):1-584. PubMed ID: 27587290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation.
    Dunne C; Da Silva O; Schmidt G; Natale R
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2009 Dec; 31(12):1124-30. PubMed ID: 20085677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.