Search Results

There are 158478 results for: content related to: The case against customised birthweight standards

  1. You have free access to this content
    Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter?

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 115, Issue 11, October 2008, Pages: 1397–1404, JA Hutcheon, a X Zhang, b S Cnattingius, c MS Kramer and a,b RW Platt a,b

    Version of Record online : 15 SEP 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01870.x

  2. Perinatal Outcomes in Large Infants Using Customised Birthweight Centiles and Conventional Measures of High Birthweight

    Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

    Volume 26, Issue 6, November 2012, Pages: 543–552, Dharmintra Pasupathy, Lesley M. E. McCowan, Lucilla Poston, Louise C. Kenny, Gus A. Dekker, Robyn A. North and SCOPE consortium

    Version of Record online : 15 OCT 2012, DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12002

  3. The customised growth potential: an international research tool to study the epidemiology of fetal growth

    Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

    Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages: 2–10, Jason Gardosi, Francesc Figueras, Britt Clausson and Andre Francis

    Version of Record online : 18 OCT 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01166.x

  4. You have free access to this content
    Maternal and pathological pregnancy characteristics in customised birthweight centiles and identification of at-risk small-for-gestational-age infants: a retrospective cohort study

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 119, Issue 7, June 2012, Pages: 848–856, NH Anderson, LC Sadler, AW Stewart and LME McCowan

    Version of Record online : 2 APR 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03313.x

  5. Optical quality for keratoconic eyes with conventional RGP lens and simulated, customised contact lens corrections: a comparison

    Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

    Volume 32, Issue 3, May 2012, Pages: 200–212, Amit Jinabhai, W Neil Charman, Clare O’Donnell and Hema Radhakrishnan

    Version of Record online : 18 APR 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00904.x

  6. You have free access to this content
    The value of customised centiles in assessing perinatal mortality risk associated with parity and maternal size

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 116, Issue 10, September 2009, Pages: 1356–1363, J Gardosi, B Clausson and A Francis

    Version of Record online : 17 JUN 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02245.x

  7. Customised birthweight centiles are useful for identifying small-for-gestational-age babies in women with type 2 diabetes

    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

    Volume 49, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages: 180–184, Janet A. ROWAN, Steven LUEN, Ruth C. HUGHES, Lynn C. SADLER and Lesley M. E. McCOWAN

    Version of Record online : 22 APR 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.00975.x

  8. Customised birthweight models: Do they increase identification of at-risk infants?

    Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health

    Volume 49, Issue 5, May 2013, Pages: 380–387, Kristen Gibbons, Allan Chang, Vicki Flenady, Kassam Mahomed, Glenn Gardener, Peter H Gray, Michael Beckmann and Dominique Rossouw

    Version of Record online : 22 APR 2013, DOI: 10.1111/jpc.12189

  9. Development of a customised birthweight standard for ethnic Chinese subjects

    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

    Volume 40, Issue 2, May 2000, Pages: 161–164, MW Pang, TN Leung, DS Sahota, TK Lau and Allan MZ Chang

    Version of Record online : 13 FEB 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2000.tb01139.x

  10. You have free access to this content
    The use of customised versus population-based birthweight standards in predicting perinatal mortality

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 114, Issue 4, April 2007, Pages: 474–477, X Zhang, a RW Platt, b S Cnattingius, c KS Joseph and d MS Kramer b

    Version of Record online : 9 MAR 2007, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01273.x

  11. You have free access to this content
    Risk factors for small-for-gestational-age infants by customised birthweight centiles: data from an international prospective cohort study

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 117, Issue 13, December 2010, Pages: 1599–1607, LME McCowan, CT Roberts, GA Dekker, RS Taylor, EHY Chan, LC Kenny, PN Baker, R Moss-Morris, LC Chappell, RA North and on behalf of the SCOPE consortium

    Version of Record online : 6 OCT 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02737.x

  12. You have free access to this content
    Should parity be included in customised fetal weight standards for identifying small-for-gestational-age babies? Results from a French multicentre study

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 115, Issue 10, September 2008, Pages: 1256–1264, A Ego, D Subtil, G Grange, O Thiebaugeorges, M-V Senat, C Vayssiere and J Zeitlin

    Version of Record online : 11 AUG 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01855.x

  13. You have free access to this content
    Differences in risk factors for incident and recurrent small-for-gestational-age birthweight: a hospital-based cohort study

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 121, Issue 9, August 2014, Pages: 1080–1089, SN Hinkle, PS Albert, P Mendola, LA Sjaarda, NS Boghossian, E Yeung and SK Laughon

    Version of Record online : 7 APR 2014, DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12628

  14. Growth monitoring of low birthweight infants: What references to use?

    Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health

    Volume 48, Issue 9, September 2012, Pages: 759–767, David Tudehope, Kristen Gibbons, Barbara Cormack and Frank Bloomfield

    Version of Record online : 12 SEP 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2012.02534.x

  15. To customise or not to customise: that is the question

    Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

    Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages: 17–19, Robert Resnik

    Version of Record online : 24 AUG 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01156.x

  16. You have free access to this content
    Customised birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 112, Issue 8, August 2005, Pages: 1026–1033, Lesley M.E. McCowan, Jane E. Harding and Alistair W. Stewart

    Version of Record online : 12 APR 2005, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00656.x

  17. You have free access to this content
    The association between customised small for gestational age infants and pre-eclampsia or gestational hypertension varies with gestation at delivery

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 114, Issue 4, April 2007, Pages: 478–484, KM Groom, RA North, KK Poppe, L Sadler and LME McCowan

    Version of Record online : 9 MAR 2007, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01277.x

  18. You have free access to this content
    The use of customised versus population-based birthweight standards in predicting perinatal mortality

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 114, Issue 10, October 2007, Pages: 1302–1303, L McCowan, K Groom and A Stewart

    Version of Record online : 12 SEP 2007, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01434.x

  19. Comparison of perinatal outcomes in small-for-gestational-age infants classified by population-based versus customised birth weight standards

    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

    Volume 52, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages: 348–355, Hyun-Hwa Cha, Su-Ho Lee, Jin-Sun Park, Sook-Young Woo, Seon-Woo Kim, Suk-Joo Choi, Soo-young Oh, Cheong-Rae Roh and Jong-Hwa Kim

    Version of Record online : 29 APR 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2012.01441.x

  20. You have free access to this content
    Predictiveness of antenatal umbilical artery Doppler for adverse pregnancy outcome in small-for-gestational-age babies according to customised birthweight centiles: population-based study

    BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Volume 115, Issue 5, April 2008, Pages: 590–594, F Figueras, E Eixarch, E Gratacos and J Gardosi

    Version of Record online : 7 MAR 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01670.x