137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34666382)
1. Performance of a Maternal Abdominal Surface Electrode System for Fetal Heart Rate and Uterine Contraction Monitoring from 34 to 37 Weeks.
Gonzalez M; Hill M; Cohen WR
Am J Perinatol; 2024 Feb; 41(3):263-269. PubMed ID: 34666382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of maternal body mass index on accuracy and reliability of external fetal monitoring techniques.
Cohen WR; Hayes-Gill B
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2014 Jun; 93(6):590-5. PubMed ID: 24684703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Novel uterine contraction monitoring to enable remote, self-administered nonstress testing.
Schwartz N; Mhajna M; Moody HL; Zahar Y; Shkolnik K; Reches A; Lowery CL
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Apr; 226(4):554.e1-554.e12. PubMed ID: 34762863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A novel modality for intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring.
Ashwal E; Shinar S; Aviram A; Orbach S; Yogev Y; Hiersch L
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2019 Mar; 32(6):889-895. PubMed ID: 29096560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Impact of Maternal Body Mass Index and Gestational Age on the Detection of Uterine Contractions by Tocodynamometry: A Retrospective Study.
Aina-Mumuney A; Hwang K; Sunwoo N; Burd I; Blakemore K
Reprod Sci; 2016 May; 23(5):638-43. PubMed ID: 26499394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy and reliability of fetal heart rate monitoring using maternal abdominal surface electrodes.
Cohen WR; Ommani S; Hassan S; Mirza FG; Solomon M; Brown R; Schifrin BS; Himsworth JM; Hayes-Gill BR
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2012 Nov; 91(11):1306-13. PubMed ID: 22924738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Monitoring Fetal Heart Rate during Labor: A Comparison of Three Methods.
Euliano TY; Darmanjian S; Nguyen MT; Busowski JD; Euliano N; Gregg AR
J Pregnancy; 2017; 2017():8529816. PubMed ID: 28392944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Assessment of uterine contractions in labor and delivery.
Rosen H; Yogev Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2023 May; 228(5S):S1209-S1221. PubMed ID: 37164494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation and patient experience of wireless noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring devices.
Eenkhoorn C; Goos TG; Dankelman J; Franx A; Eggink AJ
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2024 May; 103(5):980-991. PubMed ID: 38229258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of uterine contractions on fetal heart rate in pregnancy: a prospective observational study.
Sletten J; Kiserud T; Kessler J
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2016 Oct; 95(10):1129-35. PubMed ID: 27460848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Technical characteristics of current cardiotocographic monitors.
Ayres-de-Campos D; Nogueira-Reis Z
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol; 2016 Jan; 30():22-32. PubMed ID: 26206513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Spiral electrode for continuous fetal heart rate monitoring during in-utero myelomeningocele repair.
Segura LG; Arendt KW; Sviggum HP; Haider CR; Qureshi MY; Weingarten TN; Johnson JN; Ruano R
Int J Obstet Anesth; 2020 Nov; 44():16-19. PubMed ID: 32679551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Relationship of measured external tocodynamometry with measured internal uterine activity.
Paul MJ; Smeltzer JS
Am J Perinatol; 1991 Nov; 8(6):417-20. PubMed ID: 1814307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The association between uterine contraction frequency and fetal scalp pH in women with suspicious or pathological fetal heart rate tracings: A retrospective study.
Frenken MWE; van der Woude DAA; Dieleman JP; Oei SG; van Laar JOEH
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2022 Apr; 271():1-6. PubMed ID: 35131629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A validation study of home uterine activity monitoring technology in Western Australia.
Dickinson JE; Godfrey M; Legge M; Evans SF
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1997 Feb; 37(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 9075545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Correlation of uterine activity using the Term Guard monitor versus standard external tocodynamometry compared with the intrauterine pressure catheter.
Hess LW; McCaul JF; Perry KG; Howard PR; Morrison JC
Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Jul; 76(1 Suppl):52S-55S. PubMed ID: 2359580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Web-based comparison of historical vs contemporary methods of fetal heart rate interpretation.
Epstein AJ; Iriye BK; Hancock L; Quilligan EJ; Rumney PJ; Hancock J; Ghamsary M; Eakin CM; Smith C; Wing DA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Oct; 215(4):488.e1-5. PubMed ID: 27094965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Intrapartum non-invasive electrophysiological monitoring: A prospective observational study.
Lempersz C; Noben L; van Osta G; Wassen MLH; Meershoek BPJ; Bakker P; Jacquemyn Y; Cuerva MJ; Vullings R; Westerhuis MEMH; Oei GS
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2020 Oct; 99(10):1387-1395. PubMed ID: 32306380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
