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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9386019)

  • 1. Routine ultrasound dating has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method.
    Olsen O; Aaroe Clausen J
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1997 Nov; 104(11):1221-2. PubMed ID: 9386019
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Routine ultrasound dating has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method.
    Pistorius LR
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Sep; 105(9):1039-40. PubMed ID: 9763063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Routine ultrasound dating has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method.
    Backe B; Nakling J
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Dec; 105(12):1335-6. PubMed ID: 9883931
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Routine ultrasound has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method.
    Zimmermann R; Wisser J
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Oct; 105(10):1126-7. PubMed ID: 9800941
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy.
    Gardosi J; Geirsson RT
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Sep; 105(9):933-6. PubMed ID: 9763041
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Should a first trimester dating scan be routine for all pregnancies?
    Doubilet PM
    Semin Perinatol; 2013 Oct; 37(5):307-9. PubMed ID: 24176152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy.
    Hutchon DJ
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1999 Jun; 106(6):616. PubMed ID: 10426634
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies.
    Chitayat D; Langlois S; Douglas Wilson R; ;
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2011 Jul; 33(7):736-750. PubMed ID: 21749752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam.
    Deputy NP; Nguyen PH; Pham H; Nguyen S; Neufeld L; Martorell R; Ramakrishnan U
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2017 Jan; 17(1):25. PubMed ID: 28077098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method.
    Lynch CD; Zhang J
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 21 Suppl 2():86-96. PubMed ID: 17803622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Ultrasound dating at 12-14 or 15-20 weeks of gestation? A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in a population of in-vitro fertilized pregnancies randomized to early or late dating scan.
    Saltvedt S; Almström H; Kublickas M; Reilly M; Valentin L; Grunewald C
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jul; 24(1):42-50. PubMed ID: 15229915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Home pregnancy test compared to standard-of-care ultrasound dating in the assessment of pregnancy duration.
    Johnson S; Shaw R; Parkinson P; Ellis J; Buchanan P; Zinaman M
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2011 Feb; 27(2):393-401. PubMed ID: 21175374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Ultrasound dating at 12-14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies.
    Sladkevicius P; Saltvedt S; Almström H; Kublickas M; Grunewald C; Valentin L
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Oct; 26(5):504-11. PubMed ID: 16149101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diagnostic ultrasound in pregnancy: an overview.
    Garmel SH; D'Alton ME
    Semin Perinatol; 1994 Jun; 18(3):117-32. PubMed ID: 7973782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Should second trimester ultrasound be routine for all pregnancies?
    Makhlouf M; Saade G
    Semin Perinatol; 2013 Oct; 37(5):323-6. PubMed ID: 24176154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Methodological errors in the dating of pregnancy must be considered].
    Persson PH
    Lakartidningen; 2017 Oct; 114():. PubMed ID: 28972646
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ultrasound screening for fetal structural anomalies.
    Gomez KJ; Copel JA
    Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Apr; 5(2):204-10. PubMed ID: 8490090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing bimanual pelvic examination to ultrasound measurement for assessment of gestational age in the first trimester of pregnancy.
    Nichols M; Morgan E; Jensen JT
    J Reprod Med; 2002 Oct; 47(10):825-8. PubMed ID: 12418065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of emergency physicians using ultrasound to determine gestational age in pregnant women.
    Shah S; Teismann N; Zaia B; Vahidnia F; River G; Price D; Nagdev A
    Am J Emerg Med; 2010 Sep; 28(7):834-8. PubMed ID: 20837264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Last menstrual period versus ultrasound for pregnancy dating.
    Barr WB; Pecci CC
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2004 Oct; 87(1):38-9. PubMed ID: 15464776
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.