Is sonographic assessment of cervical length better than digital examination in screening for preterm delivery in a low-risk population?
about
Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm deliveryCervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm deliveryVaginal progesterone reduces the rate of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trialNormative data of cervical length in singleton pregnancy in women attending a tertiary care hospital in eastern IndiaClinical significance of early (< 20 weeks) vs. late (20-24 weeks) detection of sonographic short cervix in asymptomatic women in the mid-trimester.A blueprint for the prevention of preterm birth: vaginal progesterone in women with a short cervix.Sterile intra-amniotic inflammation in asymptomatic patients with a sonographic short cervix: prevalence and clinical significanceEvaluation of two treatment strategies for the prevention of preterm birth in women identified as at risk by ultrasound (PESAPRO Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.The risk of impending preterm delivery in asymptomatic patients with a nonmeasurable cervical length in the second trimester.Digital examination and transvaginal scan - competing or complementary for predicting preterm birth?Interprofessional Obstetric Ultrasound Education: Successful Development of Online Learning Modules; Case-Based Seminars; and Skills Labs for Registered and Advanced Practice Nurses, Midwives, Physicians, and Trainees.The cytokine network in women with an asymptomatic short cervix and the risk of preterm delivery.Vaginal pH versus cervical length in the mid-trimester as screening predictors of preterm labor in a low-risk population.Sonographic cervical length measurement in pregnant women with a cervical pessary
P2860
Q24201836-DB3FCF4C-E708-4EFC-AB8A-FE1FC7B6CD07Q24239859-282345F9-9449-4626-9755-AF3D069E1C19Q24622553-0BD6CB0E-CF11-4DF8-9FD5-F1C76CDD0F90Q33915442-EEB2B9B6-9573-41B2-B4CC-483A199B52D0Q34118250-D3DECB88-0DF5-4B75-AB2C-5BD378BC7301Q34119248-221C5A51-91F2-4656-8790-14556D69FCACQ35214120-66E2A074-8897-4073-ADEB-CE726E4BF352Q36095536-53CF261C-EC7F-4B1B-8EA6-27E37242B3DBQ36692485-CDC0B270-CB53-443D-BB6B-4EE147A4BF02Q37968346-428F34DB-CF68-4347-8D28-DAC5297CC80FQ38697375-3D016BA4-A3F5-47AE-BA65-74BA44ACCCACQ40171196-159C9903-0136-4B96-9289-BCDC968A2F1AQ44895024-1E04BA54-9225-42F9-AEE8-A2FEE917995FQ58860191-7704C106-F238-48CF-97C1-F78119C21F07
P2860
Is sonographic assessment of cervical length better than digital examination in screening for preterm delivery in a low-risk population?
description
2006 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2006年の論文
@ja
2006年学术文章
@wuu
2006年学术文章
@zh-cn
2006年学术文章
@zh-hans
2006年学术文章
@zh-my
2006年学术文章
@zh-sg
2006年學術文章
@yue
2006年學術文章
@zh
2006年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@en
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@nl
type
label
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@en
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@nl
prefLabel
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@en
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@nl
P1476
Is sonographic assessment of c ...... very in a low-risk population?
@en
P2093
Ozren Grgic
Ratko Matijevic
P304
P356
10.1080/00016340600935722
P577
2006-01-01T00:00:00Z