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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8498437)

  • 1. A comparison of visual and automated methods of analyzing fetal heart rate tests.
    Hiett AK; Devoe LD; Youssef A; Gardner P; Black M
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1993 May; 168(5):1517-21. PubMed ID: 8498437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Computer analysis of fetal heart rate by the Sonicaid Oxford 8002 System during pregnancy and labor. Personal experience and report of the literature].
    Boog G
    J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 2001 Feb; 30(1):28-41. PubMed ID: 11240503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of vibroacoustic stimulation on fetal heart rate parameters utilizing computer analysis.
    Barton JR; Hiett AK
    Am J Perinatol; 1997 Apr; 14(4):229-32. PubMed ID: 9259933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Population differences affect the interpretation of fetal nonstress test results.
    Johnson TR; Paine LL; Strobino DM; Witter FR
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Sep; 179(3 Pt 1):779-83. PubMed ID: 9757989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A controlled trial of self-nonstress test versus assisted nonstress test in the evaluation of fetal well-being.
    Reece EA; Hagay Z; Garofalo J; Hobbins JC
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Feb; 166(2):489-92. PubMed ID: 1536216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The diagnostic values of concurrent nonstress testing, amniotic fluid measurement, and Doppler velocimetry in screening a general high-risk population.
    Devoe LD; Gardner P; Dear C; Castillo RA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Sep; 163(3):1040-7; discussion 1047-8. PubMed ID: 2206056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of visual and computerized interpretation of nonstress test results in a randomized controlled trial.
    Bracero LA; Morgan S; Byrne DW
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1999 Nov; 181(5 Pt 1):1254-8. PubMed ID: 10561655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Interpretation of nonstress tests by an artificial neural network.
    Kol S; Thaler I; Paz N; Shmueli O
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1995 May; 172(5):1372-9. PubMed ID: 7755041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Predictive value of the nonreactive nonstress test in evaluating neonatal outcome.
    Bhide A; Bhattacharya MS
    J Postgrad Med; 1990 Apr; 36(2):104-5. PubMed ID: 2097363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of fetal well-being using the nonstress test in the home setting.
    Naef RW; Morrison JC; Washburne JF; McLaughlin BN; Perry KG; Roberts WE
    Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Sep; 84(3):424-6. PubMed ID: 8058242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Auscultated fetal heart rate accelerations. An alternative to the nonstress test.
    Daniels SM; Boehm N
    J Nurse Midwifery; 1991; 36(2):88-94. PubMed ID: 2037878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The nonreactive nonstress test: predictive value for neonatal anemia in the isoimmunized pregnancy.
    Ouzounian JG; Alsulyman OM; Monteiro HA; Songster GS
    Obstet Gynecol; 1996 Sep; 88(3):364-7. PubMed ID: 8752240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of nonstress fetal heart rate testing in multiple gestations.
    Blake GD; Knuppel RA; Ingardia CJ; Lake M; Aumann G; Hanson M
    Obstet Gynecol; 1984 Apr; 63(4):528-32. PubMed ID: 6700901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fetal acoustic stimulation testing. III. Predictive value of a reactive test.
    Smith CV; Phelan JP; Broussard P; Paul RH
    J Reprod Med; 1988 Feb; 33(2):217-8. PubMed ID: 3351822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Semi-Fowler's positioning, lateral tilts, and their effects on nonstress tests.
    Moffatt FW; van den Hof M
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1997; 26(5):551-7. PubMed ID: 9313185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Neural network prediction of nonstress test results: how often should we perform nonstress tests?
    Devoe LD; Carlton E; Prescott P
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1995 Oct; 173(4):1128-31. PubMed ID: 7485305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A new modality in nonstress testing: evaluation of beat-to-beat fetal heart rate variability.
    Lauersen NH; Wilson KH; Bilek A; Rao VS; Kurkulos M
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1981 Nov; 141(5):521-6. PubMed ID: 7294079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Does Doppler-detected fetal movement decrease the incidence of nonreactive nonstress tests?
    Stanco LM; Rabello Y; Medearis AL; Paul RH
    Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Dec; 82(6):999-1003. PubMed ID: 8233279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computerised analysis of fetal heart rate recordings in patients with diabetes mellitus: the Dawes-Redman criteria may not be valid indicators of fetal well-being.
    Tincello DG; el-Sapagh KM; Walkinshaw SA
    J Perinat Med; 1998; 26(2):102-6. PubMed ID: 9650130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A prospective comparative study of the extended nonstress test and the nipple stimulation contraction stress test.
    Devoe LD; Morrison J; Martin J; Palmer S; Martin R; Searle N; Arthur M
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1987 Sep; 157(3):531-7. PubMed ID: 3631154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.