50 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9017954)
21. Defensive medicine during hospital obstetrical care: a byproduct of the technological age.
Bassett KL; Iyer N; Kazanjian A
Soc Sci Med; 2000 Aug; 51(4):523-37. PubMed ID: 10868668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986. Economic and noneconomic aspects.
Tussing AD; Wojtowycz MA
Med Care; 1992 Jun; 30(6):529-40. PubMed ID: 1593918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Change in cesarean section rate as a reflection of the present malpractice crisis.
Ryan K; Schnatz P; Greene J; Curry S
Conn Med; 2005 Mar; 69(3):139-41. PubMed ID: 15861999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Do tort reforms impact the incidence of birth by cesarean section? A reassessment.
Cano-Urbina J; Montanera D
Int J Health Econ Manag; 2017 Mar; 17(1):103-112. PubMed ID: 28477295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The problem of defensive medicine.
Tancredi LR; Barondess JA
Science; 1978 May; 200(4344):879-82. PubMed ID: 644329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Malpractice, defensive medicine, and obstetric behavior.
Tussing AD; Wojtowycz MA
Med Care; 1997 Feb; 35(2):172-91. PubMed ID: 9017954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Fear of litigation and cesarean section rates.
Minkoff H
Semin Perinatol; 2012 Oct; 36(5):390-4. PubMed ID: 23009974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Electronic fetal monitoring: physician liability and informed consent.
Gilfix MG
Am J Law Med; 1984; 10(1):31-90. PubMed ID: 6391159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [IS FEAR FROM MALPRACTICE CLAIMS AGAINST OBSTETRICIANS POSSIBLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE IN THE RATE OF CESAREAN SECTIONS?].
Rabinerson D; Oron G; Gabbay-Benziv R
Harefuah; 2018 Oct; 157(10):664-667. PubMed ID: 30343547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Interrelations between four antepartum obstetric interventions and cesarean delivery in women at low risk: a systematic review and modeling of the cascade of interventions.
Rossignol M; Chaillet N; Boughrassa F; Moutquin JM
Birth; 2014 Mar; 41(1):70-8. PubMed ID: 24654639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring interpretation in labour: a critical appraisal.
Maso G; Piccoli M; De Seta F; Parolin S; Banco R; Camacho Mattos L; Bogatti P; Alberico S
Minerva Ginecol; 2015 Feb; 67(1):65-79. PubMed ID: 25411863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Neonatal encephalopathy 2015: opportunity lost and words unspoken.
Sartwelle TP; Johnston JC
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2016; 29(9):1372-5. PubMed ID: 26067269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Historical controversy in health technology assessment: the case of electronic fetal monitoring.
Banta DH; Thacker SB
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2001 Nov; 56(11):707-19. PubMed ID: 11711906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Changing trends and indications for cesarean section in the last few decades].
Nagy S
Orv Hetil; 2014 Jul; 155(29):1140-6. PubMed ID: 25016445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
