English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Every clinical action has the potential to do harm. This is true not only for formal medical 'treatments' but also for the tests on which decisions to recommend these treatments are based. For this reason, the introduction of new tests into routine practice should be backed up by evidence that, overall, those tested are likely to benefit as a result. These considerations are particularly compelling in contexts, such as antenatal care, where the vast majority of pregnant women wi l l have a good normal outcome whether they are tested or not. The development of a new test for use in clinical practice can be conveniently (though somewhat simplistically) characterised into three phases, each of which require a particular approach to evaluation (Table I ) .

Principles for clinical evaluation of new methods for perinatal monitoring