First Header Logo Second Header Logo

Connection

Catherine Matthews to Retrospective Studies

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Catherine Matthews has written about Retrospective Studies.
Connection Strength

0.645
  1. Myers EM, Siff L, Osmundsen B, Geller E, Matthews CA. Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Apr; 26(4):585-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  2. Crane AK, Geller EJ, Sullivan S, Robinson BL, Myers EM, Horton C, Matthews CA. Short-term mesh exposure after robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy. South Med J. 2014 Oct; 107(10):603-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  3. Myers EM, Geller EJ, Connolly A, Bowling JM, Matthews CA. Robotic sacrocolpopexy performance and cumulative summation analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Mar-Apr; 20(2):83-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.065
  4. Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, Matthews CA. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jul-Aug; 19(4):230-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  5. Geller EJ, Matthews CA. Impact of robotic operative efficiency on profitability. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul; 209(1):20.e1-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  6. Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Jan-Feb; 20(1):43-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  7. Carroll AW, Lamb E, Hill AJ, Gill EJ, Matthews CA. Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology. Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Sep; 23(9):1183-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  8. Matthews CA, Reid N, Ramakrishnan V, Hull K, Cohen S. Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov; 203(5):499.e1-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  9. Campbell SJ, Cropsey KL, Matthews CA. Intrauterine device use in a high-risk population: experience from an urban university clinic. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Aug; 197(2):193.e1-6; discussion 193.e6-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  10. Overholt TL, Evans RJ, Lessey BA, Matthews CA, Hines KN, Badlani G, Walker SJ. Non-bladder centric interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome phenotype is significantly associated with co-occurring endometriosis. Can J Urol. 2020 06; 27(3):10257-10262.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  11. Walker SJ, Plair A, Hemal K, Langefeld CD, Matthews C, Badlani G, Zambon J, Heath H, Evans RJ. Bladder Hydrodistention Does Not Result in a Significant Change in Bladder Capacity for Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome Patients. Urology. 2019 Oct; 132:81-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.024
  12. Caveney M, Matthews C, Mirzazadeh M. The Effect of Resident Involvement in Pelvic Prolapse Surgery: A Retrospective Study From a Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov/Dec; 23(6):387-391.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  13. Walker SJ, Zambon J, Andersson KE, Langefeld CD, Matthews CA, Badlani G, Bowman H, Evans RJ. Bladder Capacity is a Biomarker for a Bladder Centric versus Systemic Manifestation in Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome. J Urol. 2017 08; 198(2):369-375.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  14. Cropsey KL, Matthews C, Campbel S, Ivey S, Adawadkar S. Long-term, reversible contraception use among high-risk women treated in a university-based gynecology clinic: comparison between IUD and depo-provera. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010 Feb; 19(2):349-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  15. Elser DM, Moen MD, Stanford EJ, Keil K, Matthews CA, Kohli N, Mattox F, Tomezsko J. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and urinary incontinence: surgical planning based on urodynamics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr; 202(4):375.e1-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.