Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

Home » Issues » 2006, Volume 28, Number 9

Resumo De Tese

Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor

Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2006;28(9):566-566

DOI: 10.1590/S0100-72032006000900012

Views 2

Read Full Text

opener
PDF - English PDF - Português Complete text JATS XML
How to Cite
Mendeley

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read Full Text

opener
PDF - English PDF - Português Complete text JATS XML
How to Cite
Mendeley

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE

Leia também

close-button

How to cite this article

EndNote RIS

Electronic Document Format (Vancouver)

Feitosa FEL. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia 2007;28(9):566.

Electronic Document Format (ABNT)

Feitosa, Francisco Edson de Lucena. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, v. 28, n. 9, p. 566-566, Jan. 2007.

Electronic Document Format (APA)

Feitosa, F. E. L. (2007). Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, 28(9), 566-566.

Electronic Document Format (ISO)

Feitosa, Francisco Edson de Lucena. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia [online]. 2007, vol. 28, n. 9, [cited 2024-09-28], pp.566-566. Available from: <https://journalrbgo.org/article/sublingual-versus-vaginal-misoprostol-for-induction-of-labor/>.
✕

Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor |