2016
DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20160697
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A retrospective study to evaluate etiological factors associated with intrauterine fetal death at tertiary referral centre

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
(16 reference statements)
4
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The exact reason behind this is still not fully understood. Maceration was usually higher among antepartum stillbirths, similar to what was seen by Patel S et al 14 This also helped distinguish between intrapartum and antepartum stillbirths.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The exact reason behind this is still not fully understood. Maceration was usually higher among antepartum stillbirths, similar to what was seen by Patel S et al 14 This also helped distinguish between intrapartum and antepartum stillbirths.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…[10] Placenta Pathology in Abruptio Placenta: Total 16/99 (16.16%) cases belonged to abruption placenta which contributed to fetal deaths frequency of occurrence was in accordance with the study done by Prasanna N et al (2015) [15] and Patel S et al (2016). [19] Similar findings were noted in study done by Denise A et al (2010). [26] (Table No.3)…”
Section: Placenta In Viral Hepatitissupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Baske et al (2017). [24] Placental Pathology in Cases of GDM : GDM causing IUFD noted in 3/99 cases which was similar to study done by Patel S et al (2016). [19] Out of 3 cases of GDM, 2 cases on gross examination showed calcification, single case showed infarct and single umbilical artery.…”
Section: Placental Pathology In Cases Of Pregnancy Induced Hypertensisupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, 90% of antenatal cases were un-booked, which was similar to Gupta et al (90.6%), Anjali et al (89.5%), but higher than Meena et al (85.96%), Dedhrotiya et al (72%), Kumar et al (75%), Patel et al (70%). 7,8,11,13,14 Contrastingly, only 5.1% of cases were un-booked in study by Kanavi et al and Karale et al 3,12…”
Section: Antenatal Booking Status Of Casesmentioning
confidence: 87%