160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35126959)
21. Comparison of transabdominal and transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of placenta previa.
Petpichetchian C; Pranpanus S; Suntharasaj T; Kor-Anantakul O; Hanprasertpong T
J Clin Ultrasound; 2018 Jul; 46(6):386-390. PubMed ID: 29693718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparison of transabdominal and transvaginal sonography in the evaluation of uterine mass with histopathological correlation.
Dipi RM; Amin MS; Islam MN; Khan NA; Chaiti MM; Hossain MM
Mymensingh Med J; 2013 Jan; 22(1):69-74. PubMed ID: 23416812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Correlation of transabdominal and transvaginal sonography for the assessment of uterocervical angle at 16-24 weeks' gestation.
Wongkanha L; Sudjai D; Puttanavijarn L
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Jul; 40(5):654-658. PubMed ID: 31584308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Transvaginal methotrexate injection for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: efficacy and subsequent fecundity.
Yamaguchi M; Honda R; Uchino K; Tashiro H; Ohba T; Katabuchi H
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2014; 21(5):877-83. PubMed ID: 24743111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis.
Xiao X; Ding R; Peng L; Liu H; Zhu Y
Medicine (Baltimore); 2021 Dec; 100(48):e27532. PubMed ID: 35049166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of scar thickness measurements using trans-vaginal sonography and MRI in cases of pregnancy with previous caesarean section. Do they correlate with actual scar thickness?
Singh N; Tripathi R; Mala YM; Dixit R; Tyagi S; Batra A
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2013 Nov; 33(8):810-3. PubMed ID: 24219719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Differential Diagnostic Value of Two-dimensional Ultrasound Combined with Three-dimensional Ultrasound Imaging Technology for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.
Feng C; You L; Zhu X
Curr Med Imaging; 2024; 20():1-6. PubMed ID: 38389350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
Tang X; Wang J; Du Y; Xie M; Zhang H; Xu H; Hua K
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2019 Nov; 242():1-6. PubMed ID: 31520876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for scar pregnancy cases misdiagnosed as other diseases.
Liu D; Gu X; Liu F; Shi F; Yang M; Wu Q
Clin Chim Acta; 2019 Sep; 496():134-139. PubMed ID: 31173731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. First-trimester diagnosis and management of Cesarean scar pregnancies after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a retrospective clinical analysis of 12 cases.
Ouyang Y; Li X; Yi Y; Gong F; Lin G; Lu G
Reprod Biol Endocrinol; 2015 Nov; 13():126. PubMed ID: 26589452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Transabdominal and transvaginal sonography of pelvic masses.
Fleischer AC; Gordon AN; Entman SS
Ultrasound Med Biol; 1989; 15(6):529-33. PubMed ID: 2678656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Is transabdominal ultrasound scanning of cervical measurement in mid-trimester pregnancy a useful alternative to transvaginal ultrasound scan?
Chaudhury K; Ghosh M; Halder A; Senapati S; Chaudhury S
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc; 2013; 14(4):225-9. PubMed ID: 24592111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Cesarean scar pregnancy analysis of 42 cases].
Yin L; Tao X; Zhu YC; Yu XL; Zou YH; Yang HX
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2009 Aug; 44(8):566-9. PubMed ID: 20003781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis.
Dueholm M; Lundorf E; Hansen ES; Sørensen JS; Ledertoug S; Olesen F
Fertil Steril; 2001 Sep; 76(3):588-94. PubMed ID: 11532486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Agreement between transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect.
Rasheedy R; Sammour H; Elkholy A; Fadel E
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2019 Dec; 48(10):827-831. PubMed ID: 31077871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Clinical value of MRI in cesarean scar pregnancy].
Chong Y; Zhang K; Zhou Y; Han J; Zhu F; Guo H; Xiong G
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Dec; 49(12):914-8. PubMed ID: 25608992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The measurement of nuchal translucency with transabdominal and transvaginal sonography--success rates, repeatability and levels of agreement.
Braithwaite JM; Economides DL
Br J Radiol; 1995 Jul; 68(811):720-3. PubMed ID: 7640926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. FOLLICULAR MONITORING: COMPARISON OF TRANSABDOMINAL AND TRANSVAGINAL SONOGRAPHY.
Debnath J; Satija L; Suri A; Rastogi V; Dhagat P; Sharma RK; Singh H; Khanna SK
Med J Armed Forces India; 2000 Jan; 56(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 28790632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of scar pregnancy.
Huang Z; Liu J; Jing Z; Lin L; Li X
Pak J Med Sci; 2022; 38(7):1743-1747. PubMed ID: 36246696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Diagnostic accuracy and cut-off of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in caesarean scar pregnancy.
Li H; Liu X; Xie L; Ye Z; Gan L
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2020 Mar; 246():117-122. PubMed ID: 32007793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
