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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8199074)

  • 1. Causes and clinical consequences of Rhesus (D) haemolytic disease of the newborn: a study of a Scottish population, 1985-1990.
    Hughes RG; Craig JI; Murphy WG; Greer IA
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1994 Apr; 101(4):297-300. PubMed ID: 8199074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The fetal and neonatal outcomes of Rhesus D antibody affected pregnancies in Northern Ireland.
    Craig S; Morris K; Tubman T; McClure B
    Ir Med J; 2000; 93(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 10740367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Consequences of being Rhesus D immunized during pregnancy and how to optimize new prevention strategies.
    Tiblad E; Westgren M; Pasupathy D; Karlsson A; Wikman AT
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2013 Sep; 92(9):1079-85. PubMed ID: 23750781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Preventing Rhesus D haemolytic disease of the newborn by giving anti-D immunoglobulin: are the guidelines being adequately followed?
    Howard HL; Martlew VJ; McFadyen IR; Clarke CA
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1997 Jan; 104(1):37-41. PubMed ID: 8988694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Routine antenatal Rhesus D immunoglobulin prophylaxis: the results of a prospective 10 year study.
    MacKenzie IZ; Bowell P; Gregory H; Pratt G; Guest C; Entwistle CC
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1999 May; 106(5):492-7. PubMed ID: 10430201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The prevention of Rh haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn--general background.
    Contreras M
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Nov; 105 Suppl 18():7-10. PubMed ID: 9863972
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Haemolytic disease of the newborn--the changing scene.
    Tovey LA
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1986 Sep; 93(9):960-6. PubMed ID: 3094573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cost-effectiveness of first trimester non-invasive fetal RHD screening for targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in RhD-negative pregnant women: a model-based analysis.
    Neovius M; Tiblad E; Westgren M; Kublickas M; Neovius K; Wikman A
    BJOG; 2016 Jul; 123(8):1337-46. PubMed ID: 26663771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The economics of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus negative.
    Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Lloyd Jones M; Wight J; Forman K; Wray J; Beverley C
    BJOG; 2004 Sep; 111(9):903-7. PubMed ID: 15327602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Preventing RhD haemolytic disease of the newborn. Services should be centralised for pregnancies affected by RhD haemolytic disease.
    Craig JS; McClure BG; Tubman TR
    BMJ; 1998 May; 316(7144):1611. PubMed ID: 9616034
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Preventing RhD haemolytic disease of the newborn. Revised guidelines advocate two doses of anti-D immunoglobulin for antenatal prophylaxis.
    Lee D
    BMJ; 1998 May; 316(7144):1611. PubMed ID: 9596614
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Is antenatal antibody screening worthwhile in the Zimbabwean population?
    Cakana AZ; Ngwenya L
    Cent Afr J Med; 2000 Feb; 46(2):38-41. PubMed ID: 14674207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The scientific basis of antenatal prophylaxis.
    Urbaniak SJ
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Nov; 105 Suppl 18():11-8. PubMed ID: 9863973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The incidence and outcome of clinically significant antibodies detected in Rhesus-D positive pregnant women of the Northern Territory.
    Andersson L; Szabo F
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2018 Oct; 58(5):514-517. PubMed ID: 29192961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Haemolytic disease of the newborn: the new NICE guidelines.
    Thompson J
    J Fam Health Care; 2002; 12(5):133-6. PubMed ID: 12449064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Implementation of the rhesus prevention programme: a prospective study.
    Ghosh S; Murphy WG
    Scott Med J; 1994 Oct; 39(5):147-9. PubMed ID: 8778974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Prenatal immunoglobulin prevention in Rh(D)-negative nonsensitized pregnant women].
    Katsulov A
    Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 1997; 36(2):1-2. PubMed ID: 9471891
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Risk factors for RhD immunisation despite antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis.
    Koelewijn JM; de Haas M; Vrijkotte TG; van der Schoot CE; Bonsel GJ
    BJOG; 2009 Sep; 116(10):1307-14. PubMed ID: 19538414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Time points and risk factors for RhD immunizations after the implementation of targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis: A retrospective nationwide cohort study.
    Jernman R; Isaksson C; Haimila K; Kuosmanen M; Mäkikallio-Anttila K; Toivonen S; Ordén MR; Sulin K; Tihtonen K; Vääräsmäki M; Sainio S
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2021 Oct; 100(10):1868-1875. PubMed ID: 34157128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis and patient compliance with the two-dose regimen.
    Chaffe B; Ford J; Bills V
    Transfus Med; 2007 Oct; 17(5):399-403. PubMed ID: 17903141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.