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]
