妊娠期母体变化，以下哪项不正确___

患者34岁，妊娠足月临产，滞产，胎儿胎盘娩出后，出现间歇性阴道流血，量较多。检查子宫体柔软。其出血原因最大可能是___

下列哪项不是造成不孕的原因___

关于胎动错误的是___

新生儿出生后，四肢青紫，吸痰器清理呼吸道时患儿有恶心表现，四肢稍屈，心搏90次／分，呼吸浅、慢、不规则。请用Apgar评分法，评定新生儿为多少分___

在下列有关痛经的描述中，错误的是___

导致子宫破裂的原因，错误的是___

某患者，24岁，尿频、尿痛3天，近2天白带增多呈脓性就诊。妇科检查：阴道黏膜充血，以手指压尿道腺时有脓性分泌物流出，触痛明显。最可能的诊断是___

放疗患者应暂停照射的指征不包括___

周女士，27岁，确诊妊娠，末次月经2005年3月14日开始，预产期是___

有关更年期的描述，不正确的是___

高危妊娠管理中要提高的三个率及其目的，其中不包括___

妊娠早期心脏病患者，决定是否连续妊娠的主要依据是___

某产妇，产后第6天发热达40℃，恶露多而浑浊，有臭味，子宫复旧不佳，有压痛。下述哪一项护理不妥___

经腹输卵管结扎术前护理，哪项不需要___

急性羊水过多发生时间在___

胎膜早破的后果是___

关于妇女一生各阶段的生理变化，下列说法正确的是___

有关骨盆，下列陈述错误的是___

在孕妇腹壁上听诊，除听到胎心外，还可听到___

后穹窿穿刺下列哪项是对的___

葡萄胎、侵蚀性葡萄胎和绒毛膜癌共有的临床表现是___

某初产妇，26岁，孕41周，因臀位行臀牵引术。胎儿娩出后5分钟突发阴道大量出血，约400ml，检查血压100/60mmHg，脉搏100次／分，宫底脐平。此时最适宜的护理措施是___

妊娠期总血容量平均增加___

关于阴道壁的描述，下列错误的是___

关于孕产期保健，以下正确的是___

产妇产后消化系统的变化是___

患者，女，27岁，结婚2年，自然流产3次。宫腔镜检查可见双侧输卵管开口，宫底部向内突出。最可能的诊断是___

关于胎膜早破的护理，下列哪项是错误的___

不协调性子宫收缩乏力的宫缩特点是___

围生期是指___

某孕妇，32岁，目前孕36周出现头痛伴视物不清2天。今晨头痛加剧，恶心、呕吐1次，随后剧烈抽搐约1分钟渐清醒即急诊入院。即刻测血压180/120mmHg，胎心140次／分，有不规律子宫收缩。肛查：羊膜未破，子宫口未开，骨盆测量均正常。对该孕妇的护理措施正确的是___

当决定行阴道手术助产时，为了确诊胎方位，应以哪条颅缝结合囟门检查做依据___

会阴湿热敷的面积，正确的应该是病损面积的___

女性，28岁，因婚后两年未孕就诊，下列预测排卵的方法，不准确的是___

孕妇骨盆外测量数值最小的是___

成年妇女子宫形态特征正确的是___

侵蚀性葡萄胎患者的处理原则为___

产褥期异常的临床表现是___

有关子宫内膜周期性变化哪项是正确的___

“机不可失，时不再来”指的是___

是 ___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___