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

165 related items for PubMed ID: 335580

  • 1. The Dalkon Shield, the TCu 200, and the TCu 380A in private practice.
    Thomas WO.
    Trans Pac Coast Obstet Gynecol Soc; 1977; 44():78-85. PubMed ID: 335580
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Twelve-month comparative multicenter study of the TCu 380A and ML 250 intrauterine devices in Bangkok, Thailand.
    Reinprayoon D, Gilmore C, Farr G, Amatya R.
    Contraception; 1998 Oct; 58(4):201-6. PubMed ID: 9865999
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Clinical performance of the TCu 380A and Lippes Loop IUDs in three developing countries.
    Farr G, Amatya R, Acosta M, Ekwempu C, Kisninci H.
    Contraception; 1995 Jul; 52(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 8521710
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. [Comparison of two techniques used in immediate postplacental insertion of TCu 380A intrauterine device: 12 month follow-up of 910 cases].
    Xu J, Zhuang L, Yu G.
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 1997 Jun; 32(6):354-7. PubMed ID: 9596916
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. [Random comparative study between intrauterine device Multiload Cu375 and TCu 380a inserted in the postpartum period].
    Lara Ricalde R, Menocal Tobías G, Ramos Pérez C, Velázquez Ramírez N.
    Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2006 Jun; 74(6):306-11. PubMed ID: 16970116
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. A comparison of the delta copper T and the copper T 200 in Bologna, Italy.
    Melega C, Biscontin S, Canedi L, Marchesini FP, Tirelli S, Bartolotti T, Flamigni C.
    Acta Eur Fertil; 1986 Jun; 17(1):39-41. PubMed ID: 3727892
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. [Randomized comparative study of GyneFix IN and TCu 380A intrauterine devices].
    Wu S, Hu J, Wu M.
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 1998 Jun; 33(6):345-8. PubMed ID: 10806672
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease.
    Lee NC, Rubin GL, Ory HW, Burkman RT.
    Obstet Gynecol; 1983 Jul; 62(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 6856209
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. Comparison of three different models of the copper T intrauterine contraceptive device.
    Roy S, Casagrande J, Cooper DL, Mishell DR.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1979 Jul 01; 134(5):568-74. PubMed ID: 453297
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Randomized comparative study of the copper T 300, Dalkon shield, and Shell Loop in parous women.
    Cooper DL, Israel R, Mishell DR.
    Obstet Gynecol; 1975 May 01; 45(5):569-73. PubMed ID: 1124175
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Another look at the Dalkon Shield: meta-analysis underscores its problems.
    Sivin I.
    Contraception; 1993 Jul 01; 48(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 8403900
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.