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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

245 related items for PubMed ID: 16225563

  • 1. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: a systematic quantitative review.
    Coomarasamy A, Connock M, Thornton J, Khan KS.
    BJOG; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1461-6. PubMed ID: 16225563
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Universal third-trimester ultrasonic screening using fetal macrosomia in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Moraitis AA, Shreeve N, Sovio U, Brocklehurst P, Heazell AEP, Thornton JG, Robson SC, Papageorghiou A, Smith GC.
    PLoS Med; 2020 Oct; 17(10):e1003190. PubMed ID: 33048935
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Sonographic EFW and macrosomia: is there an optimum formula to predict diabetic fetal macrosomia?
    Combs CA, Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Siddiqi TA.
    J Matern Fetal Med; 2000 Oct; 9(1):55-61. PubMed ID: 10757437
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Use of the amniotic fluid index combined with estimated fetal weight within 10 days of delivery for prediction of macrosomia at birth.
    Ben-Haroush A, Melamed N, Mashiach R, Meizner I, Yogev Y.
    J Ultrasound Med; 2008 Jul; 27(7):1029-32. PubMed ID: 18577666
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Blinded ultrasound fetal biometry at 36 weeks and risk of emergency Cesarean delivery in a prospective cohort study of low-risk nulliparous women.
    Sovio U, Smith GCS.
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jul; 52(1):78-86. PubMed ID: 28452133
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. A simulation study to assess the potential benefits of MRI-based fetal weight estimation as a second-line test for suspected macrosomia.
    Badr DA, Carlin A, Boulvain M, Kadji C, Cannie MM, Jani JC, Gucciardo L.
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2024 Jun; 297():126-131. PubMed ID: 38615575
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 13.