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 *

719 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9239827)

  • 1. Incorporating sonographic cheek-to-cheek diameter, biparietal diameter and abdominal circumference improves weight estimation in the macrosomic fetus.
    Abramowicz JS; Robischon K; Cox C
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Jun; 9(6):409-13. PubMed ID: 9239827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Weight estimation for low birth weight fetuses and macrosomic fetuses in Chinese population.
    Chen P; Yu J; Li X; Wang Y; Chang C
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2011 Sep; 284(3):599-606. PubMed ID: 21046133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Different formulas, different thresholds and different performance-the prediction of macrosomia by ultrasound.
    Aviram A; Yogev Y; Ashwal E; Hiersch L; Danon D; Hadar E; Gabbay-Benziv R
    J Perinatol; 2017 Dec; 37(12):1285-1291. PubMed ID: 28906497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fetal cheek-to-cheek diameter in the prediction of mode of delivery.
    Abramowicz JS; Rana S; Abramowicz S
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Apr; 192(4):1205-11; discussion 1211-3. PubMed ID: 15846203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Incorporation of femur length leads to underestimation of fetal weight in asymmetric preterm growth restriction.
    Proctor LK; Rushworth V; Shah PS; Keunen J; Windrim R; Ryan G; Kingdom J
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2010 Apr; 35(4):442-8. PubMed ID: 20196066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A new formula for optimized weight estimation in extreme fetal macrosomia (≥ 4500 g).
    Faschingbauer F; Beckmann MW; Goecke TW; Yazdi B; Siemer J; Schmid M; Mayr A; Schild RL
    Ultraschall Med; 2012 Oct; 33(5):480-8. PubMed ID: 22723038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Construction of fetal charts for biparietal diameter, fetal abdominal circumference and femur length in Bangladeshi population.
    Ashrafunnessa ; Jehan AH; Chowdhury SB; Sultana F; Haque JA; Khatun S; Karim MA
    Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull; 2003 Aug; 29(2):67-77. PubMed ID: 14674622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements.
    Chauhan SP; West DJ; Scardo JA; Boyd JM; Joiner J; Hendrix NW
    Obstet Gynecol; 2000 May; 95(5):639-42. PubMed ID: 10775720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Screening efficacy of the subcutaneous tissue width/femur length ratio for fetal macrosomia in the non-diabetic pregnancy.
    Rotmensch S; Celentano C; Liberati M; Malinger G; Sadan O; Bellati U; Glezerman M
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 1999 May; 13(5):340-4. PubMed ID: 10380299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of fundal height measurement and sonographically measured fetal abdominal circumference in the prediction of high and low birth weight at term.
    Kayem G; Grangé G; Bréart G; Goffinet F
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Nov; 34(5):566-71. PubMed ID: 19582801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Ultrasound macrosomic fetal weight estimation formula using maternal weight measurements].
    Murlewska J; Pietryga M; Wender-Ozegowska E
    Ginekol Pol; 2011 Feb; 82(2):114-8. PubMed ID: 21574483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The fetal cheek-to-cheek diameter and abdominal circumference: are they correlated?
    Kerrick H; Sheiner E; Mandell C; Guse D; Pombar X; Hussey MJ; Strassner HT; Abramowicz JS
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2009 Oct; 280(4):585-8. PubMed ID: 19219447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. New sonographic method for fetuses with a large abdominal circumference improves fetal weight estimation.
    Kehl S; Körber C; Hart N; Goecke TW; Schild RL; Siemer J
    Ultraschall Med; 2012 Jun; 33(3):265-9. PubMed ID: 21080309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fetal weight estimation and prediction of fetal macrosomia in non-diabetic pregnant women.
    Oçer F; Kaleli S; Budak E; Oral E
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 1999 Mar; 83(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 10221609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fetal abdominal circumference measurements of 35 and 38 cm as predictors of macrosomia. A risk factor for shoulder dystocia.
    Gilby JR; Williams MC; Spellacy WN
    J Reprod Med; 2000 Nov; 45(11):936-8. PubMed ID: 11127108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimation of fetal weight by measurement of fetal thigh soft-tissue thickness in the late third trimester.
    Scioscia M; Scioscia F; Vimercati A; Caradonna F; Nardelli C; Pinto LR; Selvaggi LE
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Mar; 31(3):314-20. PubMed ID: 18307214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sonographic prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by maternal diabetes: finding the best formula.
    Shmueli A; Salman L; Hadar E; Aviram A; Bardin R; Ashwal E; Gabbay-Benziv R
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2019 Jan; 299(1):97-103. PubMed ID: 30327863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Intrapartum fetal weight estimation: a comparison of three formulae.
    Yarkoni S; Reece EA; Wan M; Holford T; Romero R; Hobbins JC
    J Ultrasound Med; 1986 Dec; 5(12):707-10. PubMed ID: 3543391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Regression formula for estimation of fetal weight with use of abdominal circumference and femur length: a prospective study.
    Ferrero A; Maggi E; Giancotti A; Torcia F; Pachì A
    J Ultrasound Med; 1994 Nov; 13(11):823-33. PubMed ID: 7837327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Correctly identifying the macrosomic fetus: improving ultrasonography-based prediction.
    Sokol RJ; Chik L; Dombrowski MP; Zador IE
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Jun; 182(6):1489-95. PubMed ID: 10871470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 36.