Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Filters

J Christopher Glantz

Showing results (1-10 of 56) with videos related to

Pageof 6
Sort By:
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|August 13, 2003
Labor induction rate variation in upstate New York: what is the difference?J Christopher Glantz
Obstetrics and Gynecology|January 24, 2014
Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomesJ Christopher Glantz
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine|May 27, 2005
Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomesJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|May 10, 2002
Clearing up meconium: clinical management and research ethicsJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|May 24, 2011
"The times, they are a-changin'"*J Christopher Glantz
Obstetrics and Gynecology|June 27, 2019
Elective Induction at 39 Weeks of Gestation and the Implications of a Large, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled TrialJ Christopher Glantz
Obstetrics and Gynecology|December 23, 2009
Term labor induction compared with expectant managementJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|February 16, 2017
Why not induce everyone at 39 weeks?J Christopher Glantz
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|September 15, 2010
Rates of labor induction and primary cesarean delivery do not correlate with rates of adverse neonatal outcome in level I hospitalsJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|January 4, 2013
Obstetric variation, intervention, and outcomes: doing more but accomplishing lessJ Christopher Glantz
Pageof 6

Showing results (1-10 of 56) with videos related to

Sort By:
Pageof 6
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|August 13, 2003
Labor induction rate variation in upstate New York: what is the difference?J Christopher Glantz
Obstetrics and Gynecology|January 24, 2014
Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomesJ Christopher Glantz
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine|May 27, 2005
Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomesJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|May 10, 2002
Clearing up meconium: clinical management and research ethicsJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|May 24, 2011
"The times, they are a-changin'"*J Christopher Glantz
Obstetrics and Gynecology|June 27, 2019
Elective Induction at 39 Weeks of Gestation and the Implications of a Large, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled TrialJ Christopher Glantz
Obstetrics and Gynecology|December 23, 2009
Term labor induction compared with expectant managementJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|February 16, 2017
Why not induce everyone at 39 weeks?J Christopher Glantz
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|September 15, 2010
Rates of labor induction and primary cesarean delivery do not correlate with rates of adverse neonatal outcome in level I hospitalsJ Christopher Glantz
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)|January 4, 2013
Obstetric variation, intervention, and outcomes: doing more but accomplishing lessJ Christopher Glantz
Pageof 6