212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3514951)
1. New observations in the sonographic evaluation of intrauterine contraceptive devices.
Najarian KE; Kurtz AB
J Ultrasound Med; 1986 Apr; 5(4):205-10. PubMed ID: 3514951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy of material adherent to intrauterine contraceptive devices.
Sheppard BL; Bonnar J
Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1980 Feb; 87(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 7362803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [The end of IUD marketing in the United States: what does it mean for American women?].
Forrest JD
Contracept Fertil Sex (Paris); 1987 Mar; 15(3):291-300. PubMed ID: 12341479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Milestones in intrauterine device development.
Tatum HJ
Fertil Steril; 1983 Feb; 39(2):141-3. PubMed ID: 6401633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The rise and fall and rise of the IUD.
Burnhill MS
Am J Gynecol Health; 1989; 3(3-S):6-10. PubMed ID: 12285000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of intrauterine contraceptive devices on the ultrastructure of the endometrium in relation to bleeding complications.
Sheppard BL; Bonnar J
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1983 Aug; 146(7):829-39. PubMed ID: 6869454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Short notes on intrauterine devices.
Indian J Med Sci; 1990 May; 44(5):129-33. PubMed ID: 2397950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound?
Moschos E; Twickler DM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1439-43. PubMed ID: 21606311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Experience with two different medicated intrauterine devices: a comparative study of the Progestasert and Nova-T.
Fylling P; Fagerhol M
Fertil Steril; 1979 Feb; 31(2):138-41. PubMed ID: 761675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Suspension of IUD sales in the United States: what are the international implications?].
Ramirez FJ; Starrs AM
Perspect Int Planif Fam; 1987; (Spec No):28-34. PubMed ID: 12269049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The intrauterine device today.
Rioux JE
J SOGC; 1993 Oct; 15(8):921-4. PubMed ID: 12318529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Acceptability of IUDs is increasing.
Finger WR; Barr D
Netw Res Triangle Park N C; 1992 Oct; 13(2):27-30. PubMed ID: 12286082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Intrauterine devices. The optimal long-term contraceptive method?
Fortney JA; Feldblum PJ; Raymond EG
J Reprod Med; 1999 Mar; 44(3):269-74. PubMed ID: 10202746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [The effect of intrauterine contraceptive devices on the endometrium].
Sheppard BL; Bonnar J
Contracept Fertil Sex (Paris); 1987 Nov; 15(11):1015-24. PubMed ID: 12341565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Intrauterine devices.
Mccarthy TG; Ratnam SS
Contemp Rev Obstet Gynaecol; 1992 Oct; 4(4):215-22. PubMed ID: 12345158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. New developments in intrauterine devices.
Farr G
Netw Res Triangle Park N C; 1991 Sep; 12(2):9. PubMed ID: 12284281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of a progesterone-releasing intrauterine contraceptive device on endometrial blood vessels: a morphometric study.
Shaw ST; Macaulay LK; Aznar R; González-Angulo A; Roy S
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1981 Dec; 141(7):821-7. PubMed ID: 7315908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparative study of the ease of removal of intrauterine contraceptive devices.
Roke CM
Contraception; 1988 Jun; 37(6):555-63. PubMed ID: 3396356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Steroid intra-uterine contraception: progesterone-releasing devices. II. Insertion, clinical problems and contraceptive dependability].
Custo GM; Cosmi EV
Patol Clin Ostet Ginecol; 1984; 12(4):331-43. PubMed ID: 12340352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Actinomycosis infection associated with intrauterine contraceptive devices.
Keebler C; Chatwani A; Schwartz R
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1983 Mar; 145(5):596-9. PubMed ID: 6829637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
