-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Parameter charts From: Edward Zabrek, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. (stork@flash.net) Fri Dec 5 03:00:10 1997 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: DuBose, Terry: "Help" Previous message: Terry J. DuBose: "Re: Parameter charts" In reply to: Terry J. DuBose: "Re: Parameter charts" Next in thread: Suzy14: "Re: Parameter charts" I am not proposing the Deter or Rosavik models be the standard of care. I only meant to point out the weakness and pitfalls of using standardized charting techniques, and mention that there are alternatives out there which are more accurate. Terry, I went to your web site. I could not hyper link to a program example. I would like to know more about how your program works, even try it! One thing is clear to me--if we want more accurate fetal analysis, we need to perform more serial sonograms so as to obtain more data. Ed Zabrek, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. stork@flash.net At 01:48 AM 12/5/97 -0600, you wrote: >I am sure the Rosavik and Deter models are very good, also complex, >requiring a computer, and some rather expensive software, I think. > >Personally, I still prefer the Age Range Analysis. Simply converting all >parameters to ages (weeks and 1/10ths of weeks) and comparing series >exams. Generally, growth (age) should be no less than 10% of the >expected age. Normal, small fetuses (SGA) may drop below the mean age a >little but not more than -10%, and there should not be a progressive >lagging of size/age. True IUGR will exhibit a progressive lagging of >ages. ( This method was not developed in a mile high city, but also in >Texas.) > >This is brief, if you want more detail see my http://wwweb page at: > >http://www.io.com/~dubose/ > >or ask specific questions here. I'll try to be more lucid... may be not >so late at night. > >Peace, Terry J. DuBose > >On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:41:36 -0600 "Edward Zabrek, M.D., F.A.C.O.G." ><stork@flash.net> writes: >>I believe that standards are only as good as the test population from >>which they are derived. This is particularly true with an Ob >population. >>As we all know, the population of pregnant moms living in Denver will >show a >>much lower EFW as a "normal standard" than those living in NYC or nearly > >>any other city at sea level. I believe that a more appropriate model >for >>feta growth is the Ivar Rosavik or Russell Deter model that allows each >>fetus to determine his/her own growth curves with serial sonograms. > Next message: DuBose, Terry: "Help" Previous message: Terry J. DuBose: "Re: Parameter charts" In reply to: Terry J. DuBose: "Re: Parameter charts" Next in thread: Suzy14: "Re: Parameter charts"

recommended search...
OBGYN.net forums endometriosis zone Web

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 05:34:05 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.