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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33129016)

  • 1. Qualitative assessment of interpretability and observer agreement of three uterine monitoring techniques.
    Thijssen KMJ; Tissink JGLJ; Dieleman JP; Van der Hout-van der Jagt MB; Westerhuis MEMH; Oei SG
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2020 Dec; 255():142-146. PubMed ID: 33129016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods.
    Euliano TY; Nguyen MT; Darmanjian S; McGorray SP; Euliano N; Onkala A; Gregg AR
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Jan; 208(1):66.e1-6. PubMed ID: 23122926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison between electrical uterine monitor, tocodynamometer and intra uterine pressure catheter for uterine activity in labor.
    Hadar E; Biron-Shental T; Gavish O; Raban O; Yogev Y
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2015 Aug; 28(12):1367-74. PubMed ID: 25123517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical Use of Electrohysterography During Term Labor: A Systematic Review on Diagnostic Value, Advantages, and Limitations.
    Vlemminx MWC; Rabotti C; van der Hout-van der Jagt MB; Oei SG
    Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2018 May; 73(5):303-324. PubMed ID: 29850920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A validation of electrohysterography for uterine activity monitoring during labour.
    Jacod BC; Graatsma EM; Van Hagen E; Visser GH
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2010 Jan; 23(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 19672790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Automated electrohysterographic detection of uterine contractions for monitoring of pregnancy: feasibility and prospects.
    Muszynski C; Happillon T; Azudin K; Tylcz JB; Istrate D; Marque C
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2018 May; 18(1):136. PubMed ID: 29739438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Multi-channel electrohysterography enabled uterine contraction characterization and its effect in delivery assessment.
    Shen J; Liu Y; Zhang M; Pumir A; Mu L; Li B; Xu J
    Comput Biol Med; 2023 Dec; 167():107697. PubMed ID: 37976821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Electrohysterography. A promising alternative for monitoring contractions].
    Vlemminx MW; de Lau H; Vullings R; Peters CH; Oei SG
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2015; 159():A8535. PubMed ID: 25650036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Monitoring Uterine Activity during Labor: Clinician Interpretation of Electrohysterography versus Intrauterine Pressure Catheter and Tocodynamometry.
    Euliano TY; Nguyen MT; Darmanjian S; Busowski JD; Euliano N; Gregg AR
    Am J Perinatol; 2016 Jul; 33(9):831-8. PubMed ID: 26960704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Uterine activity monitoring during labour--a multi-centre, blinded two-way trial of external tocodynamometry against electrohysterography.
    Reinhard J; Hayes-Gill BR; Schiermeier S; Löser H; Niedballa LM; Haarmann E; Sonnwald A; Hatzmann W; Heinrich TM; Louwen F
    Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol; 2011 Oct; 215(5):199-204. PubMed ID: 22028060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Automatic recognition of uterine contractions with electrohysterogram signals based on the zero-crossing rate.
    Song X; Qiao X; Hao D; Yang L; Zhou X; Xu Y; Zheng D
    Sci Rep; 2021 Jan; 11(1):1956. PubMed ID: 33479344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electrohysterography for uterine monitoring during term labour compared to external tocodynamometry and intra-uterine pressure catheter.
    Vlemminx MWC; Thijssen KMJ; Bajlekov GI; Dieleman JP; Van Der Hout-Van Der Jagt MB; Oei SG
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2017 Aug; 215():197-205. PubMed ID: 28649034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recording of electrohysterogram laplacian potential.
    Alberola-Rubio J; Garcia-Casado J; Ye-Lin Y; Prats-Boluda G; Perales A
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2011; 2011():2510-3. PubMed ID: 22254851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of surface acquired uterine electromyography and intrauterine pressure catheter to assess uterine activity.
    Haran G; Elbaz M; Fejgin MD; Biron-Shental T
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2012 May; 206(5):412.e1-5. PubMed ID: 22284960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Automatic identification of motion artifacts in EHG recording for robust analysis of uterine contractions.
    Ye-Lin Y; Garcia-Casado J; Prats-Boluda G; Alberola-Rubio J; Perales A
    Comput Math Methods Med; 2014; 2014():470786. PubMed ID: 24523828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electrohysterography during pregnancy: preliminary report.
    Gondry J; Marque C; Duchene J; Cabrol D
    Biomed Instrum Technol; 1993; 27(4):318-24. PubMed ID: 8369867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Prognostic value of chosen parameters of mechanical and bioelectrical uterine activity in prediction of threatening preterm labour].
    Zietek J; Sikora J; Horoba K; Matonia A; Jezewski J; Magnucki J; Kobielska L
    Ginekol Pol; 2009 Mar; 80(3):193-200. PubMed ID: 19382611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prediction of intrauterine pressure waveform from transabdominal electrohysterography.
    Euliano T; Skowronski M; Marossero D; Shuster J; Edwards R
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2006 Dec; 19(12):811-6. PubMed ID: 17190691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparing the performance of a new disposable pneumatic tocodynamometer with a standard tocodynamometer.
    Eswaran H; Wilson JD; Murphy P; Siegel ER; Lowery CL
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2016 Mar; 95(3):319-28. PubMed ID: 26660622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Non-invasive transabdominal uterine electromyography correlates with the strength of intrauterine pressure and is predictive of labor and delivery.
    Maul H; Maner WL; Olson G; Saade GR; Garfield RE
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2004 May; 15(5):297-301. PubMed ID: 15280119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.