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: 9883931)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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.
    Olsen O; Aaroe Clausen J
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1997 Nov; 104(11):1221-2. PubMed ID: 9386019
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Comparison of gestational age at birth based on last menstrual period and ultrasound during the first trimester.
    Hoffman CS; Messer LC; Mendola P; Savitz DA; Herring AH; Hartmann KE
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2008 Nov; 22(6):587-96. PubMed ID: 19000297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Determinants and consequences of discrepancies in menstrual and ultrasonographic gestational age estimates.
    Morin I; Morin L; Zhang X; Platt RW; Blondel B; Bréart G; Usher R; Kramer MS
    BJOG; 2005 Feb; 112(2):145-52. PubMed ID: 15663577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. A home calendar and recall method of last menstrual period for estimating gestational age in rural Bangladesh: a validation study.
    Gernand AD; Paul RR; Ullah B; Taher MA; Witter FR; Wu L; Labrique AB; West KP; Christian P
    J Health Popul Nutr; 2016 Oct; 35(1):34. PubMed ID: 27769295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

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

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Risk assessment adjusted for gestational age in maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome.
    Gardosi J; Mongelli M
    BMJ; 1993 Jun; 306(6891):1509-11. PubMed ID: 8518678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates.
    Mongelli M; Wilcox M; Gardosi J
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1996 Jan; 174(1 Pt 1):278-81. PubMed ID: 8572021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.
    Salomon LJ; Alfirevic Z; Berghella V; Bilardo C; Hernandez-Andrade E; Johnsen SL; Kalache K; Leung KY; Malinger G; Munoz H; Prefumo F; Toi A; Lee W;
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Jan; 37(1):116-26. PubMed ID: 20842655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.