The active phase of labor.
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] K. Mrklas,et al. The REDUCED trial: a cluster randomized trial for REDucing the utilization of CEsarean delivery for dystocia. , 2023, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[2] W. Cohen,et al. The latent phase of labor. , 2023, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[3] Michelle Osterman J. K.. Changes in primary and repeat cesarean delivery: United States 2016-2021 , 2022 .
[4] J. Stephenson. Rate of First-time Cesarean Deliveries on the Rise in the US. , 2022, JAMA Health Forum.
[5] Shen-Chih Chang,et al. Hospital Quality Improvement Interventions, Statewide Policy Initiatives, and Rates of Cesarean Delivery for Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex Births in California. , 2021, JAMA.
[6] K. McGeechan,et al. Impact of analysis technique on our understanding of the natural history of labour: a simulation study , 2021, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[7] T. Lavender,et al. WHO next‐generation partograph: revolutionary steps towards individualised labour care , 2021, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[8] E. A. Friedman,et al. Guidelines for Labor Assessment: Failure to Progress? , 2020, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[9] K. Gregory,et al. Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity After 4 and 6 Hours of Protracted Active Labor in Nulliparous Term Pregnancies. , 2019, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[10] E. A. Friedman,et al. Obstetric practice guidelines: labor’s love lost? , 2019, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.
[11] Y. Ginsberg,et al. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes , 2019, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[12] Inge Christoffer Olsen,et al. The frequency of intrapartum caesarean section use with the WHO partograph versus Zhang's guideline in the Labour Progression Study (LaPS): a multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial , 2019, The Lancet.
[13] Michael J Crowther,et al. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods , 2017, Statistics in medicine.
[14] H. Venables,et al. Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of cervical dilatation and its value in detecting active labor , 2018, Journal of Ultrasound.
[15] Julia C Phillippi,et al. Applying a physiologic partograph to Consortium on Safe Labor data to identify opportunities for safely decreasing cesarean births among nulliparous women , 2018, Birth.
[16] A. Menciassi,et al. Devices for Measuring Cervical Dilation During Labor: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2018, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.
[17] T. Quibel,et al. Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery , 2017, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[18] H. Souza,et al. Cervical dilatation patterns of ‘low‐risk’ women with spontaneous labour and normal perinatal outcomes: a systematic review , 2017, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[19] T. Duan,et al. The physiologic pattern of normal labour progression , 2017, BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
[20] E. A. Friedman,et al. The assessment of labor: a brief history , 2017, Journal of perinatal medicine.
[21] E. A. Friedman,et al. Management of Labor: Are the New Guidelines Justified? , 2018, Journal of midwifery & women's health.
[22] Joshua I. Rosenbloom,et al. New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns , 2017, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[23] W. Cohen. Clinical assessment of uterine contractions , 2017, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.
[24] D. Nelson,et al. Too close for comfort. , 2016, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[25] J. Repke,et al. Reduction in the Cesarean Delivery Rate After Obstetric Care Consensus Guideline Implementation , 2016, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[26] P. Twomey,et al. Why are clinical practice guidelines not followed? , 2016, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.
[27] V. Berghella,et al. Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines. , 2016, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[28] Martin Offringa,et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. , 2015, Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine.
[29] K. Salvesen,et al. Agreement between transperineal ultrasound measurements and digital examinations of cervical dilatation during labor , 2015, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
[30] E. Ferrazzi,et al. Progression of cervical dilatation in normal human labor is unpredictable , 2015, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.
[31] J. Troendle,et al. Statistical aspects of modeling the labor curve. , 2015, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[32] E. A. Friedman,et al. Misguided guidelines for managing labor. , 2015, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[33] M. Abrahamowicz,et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.
[34] E. A. Friedman,et al. Perils of the new labor management guidelines. , 2015, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[35] Gynecologists. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. , 2014, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[36] Jeanne-Marie Guise,et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. , 2014, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[37] M. Varner,et al. Maternal obesity and contraction strength in the first stage of labor. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[38] S. Laughon,et al. Changes in labor patterns over 50 years. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[39] Marjolein Lugtenberg,et al. Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners , 2011, BMC family practice.
[40] J. Pezzullo,et al. Variability in rate of cervical dilation in nulliparous women at term. , 2011, Birth.
[41] Jun Zhang,et al. Contemporary Patterns of Spontaneous Labor With Normal Neonatal Outcomes , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[42] Jun Zhang,et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[43] R. Mikolajczyk,et al. The Natural History of the Normal First Stage of Labor , 2010, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[44] J. Christie,et al. Planning a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: Methodological Issues , 2009, Nursing research.
[45] K. Weizsaecker,et al. Labour characteristics and neonatal Erb’s palsy , 2007, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[46] H. V. van Geijn,et al. Elevated uterine activity increases the risk of fetal acidosis at birth. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[47] Ofer Barnea,et al. Continuous monitoring of cervical dilatation and fetal head station during labor. , 2007, Medical engineering & physics.
[48] R. Romero,et al. Childbirth and the Pelvic Floor , 2006 .
[49] L. Pilotto,et al. Cluster randomized controlled trials in primary care: An introduction , 2006, The European journal of general practice.
[50] J. Troendle,et al. Methodological challenges in studying labour progression in contemporary practice. , 2006, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.
[51] D. Torgerson,et al. Cluster randomized controlled trials. , 2005, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.
[52] R. Sokol,et al. Is abnormal labor associated with shoulder dystocia in nulliparous women? , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[53] C. Weiner,et al. Intrauterine pressure during the second stage of labor in obese women. , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[54] Jun Zhang,et al. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[55] L Impey,et al. Graphic analysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[56] M. Cabana,et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. , 1999, JAMA.
[57] J C Lindsey,et al. Tutorial in biostatistics methods for interval-censored data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.
[58] H. Wallenburg,et al. Assessment of cervical dilatation during labor: a review. , 1991, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.
[59] G. Valenzuela,et al. Real-time microcomputer-based analysis of spontaneous and augmented labor. , 1990, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[60] Hal R. Varian,et al. GOODNESS-OF-FIT IN OPTIMIZING MODELS , 1989 .
[61] M. Rosen,et al. Transition from Latent to Active Labor , 1986, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[62] M. Carter,et al. The effect of oxytocin infusion on uterine activity levels in slow labour , 1985, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[63] E. A. Friedman,et al. Long-term effects of labor and delivery on offspring: a matched-pair analysis. , 1984, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[64] H. Hopwood. Shoulder dystocia: fifteen years' experience in a community hospital. , 1982, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[65] L. A. Sutherland,et al. A Cervimeter for Continuous Measurement of Cervical Dilatation in Labour‐Preliminary Results. , 1978 .
[66] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional labor XII. Long-term effects on infant. , 1977, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[67] R. Sokol,et al. Normal and abnormal labor progress: I. A quantitative assessment and survey of the literature. , 1977, Journal of reproductive medicine.
[68] W. Witting,et al. THE USE OF A CERVICAL DILATATION GRAPH IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PRIMIGRAVIDAE IN LABOUR , 1972, The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Commonwealth.
[69] R. H. Philpott,et al. CERVICOGRAPHS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF LABOUR IN PRIMIGRAVIDAE , 1972, The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Commonwealth.
[70] R. H. Philpott,et al. CERVICOGRAPHS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF LABOUR IN PRIMIGRAVIDAE , 1972, The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Commonwealth.
[71] E. A. Friedman,et al. Computer analysis of labor progression. V. Effects of fetal presentation and position. , 1972, Journal of reproductive medicine.
[72] E. A. Friedman,et al. Computer analysis of labor progression. IV. Diagnosis of secondary arrest of dilatation. , 1971, The Journal of reproductive medicine.
[73] E. A. Friedman,et al. Computer analysis of labor progression. 3. Pattern variations by parity. , 1971, The Journal of reproductive medicine.
[74] E. A. Friedman,et al. Computer analysis of labor progression. II. Distribution of data and limits of normal. , 1971, The Journal of reproductive medicine.
[75] W. Brenner,et al. Normal cervical dilatation pattern in late pregnancy and labor. , 1970, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[76] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional labor. IX. Delivery outcome. , 1970, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[77] E. A. Friedman,et al. COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PROGRESSION , 1969, The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Commonwealth.
[78] W. Ledger. Monitoring of Labor by Graphs , 1969, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[79] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: X. Immediate Results to Infant , 1969, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[80] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: XI. Neurologic and Developmental Effects on Surviving Infants , 1969, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[81] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: VIII. Relative Accuracy of Clinical and Graphic Diagnostic Methods , 1969, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[82] E. A. Friedman,et al. Prognostic significance of the labor pattern in multiparas. , 1967, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[83] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: VII. A Comprehensive Program for Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management , 1965, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[84] W. Ledger,et al. Practical Applications of the Graphic Portrayal of Labor , 1964, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[85] E. A. Friedman,et al. Amniotomy and the Course of Labor , 1963, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[86] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: VI. Abnormal Progress in the Multipara , 1963, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[87] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor V. Therapeutic Trial of Oxytocin in Secondary Arrest , 1963, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[88] E. A. Friedman,et al. ELECTRONIC CERVIMETER: A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT FOR THE STUDY OF CERVICAL DILATATION IN LABOR. , 1963, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[89] E. A. Friedman,et al. Determinant role of initial cervical dilatation on the course of labor. , 1962, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[90] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: III. Secondary Arrest of Dilatation in the Nullipara , 1962, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[91] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional labor. IV. Combined aberrant dilatation patterns in the nullipara. , 1962, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[92] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional Labor: II. Protracted Active‐Phase Dilatation in the Nullipara , 1961, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[93] E. A. Friedman,et al. Dysfunctional labor. I. Prolonged latent phase in the nullipara. , 1961, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[94] E. A. Friedman. Trial of labor; formulation, application, and retrospective clinical evaluation. , 1957, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
[95] E. A. Friedman,et al. Cervimetry: an objective method for the study of cervical dilatation in labor. , 1956, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[96] E. A. Friedman. Labor in multiparas; a graphicostatistical analysis. , 1956, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[97] E. A. Friedman,et al. Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis. , 1955, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[98] E. A. Friedman,et al. The graphic analysis of labor. , 1959, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.