ULTRASOUND Messages for December, 1997: Re: Lawson....NonScience from an interLooper

Re: Lawson....NonScience from an interLooper

From: Terry J. DuBose

tjdubose@juno.com

Tue Dec 9 19:10:09 1997

I have seen cases where abdominal scanning could not show the cervix well (due to the head). I am also sure that EV will show the cervix 100% of the time. But there may be some cases where the EV may not be the best option, especially if the cervix can be seen super pubic. However, I do agree that someone needs to measure a bunch of cervices abdominally, endovaginal, translabially, and transperineally just to be sure. My gut tells me there won't be a millimeter mean difference, but the variability will be different. My hypothesis is: The EV will have the least variability, abdominal will have the most variability, and translabially and transperineally will fall somewhere in the middle.

Now someone on this list offered to do some measurements, and I offered to run the stats. But to save my life I can't remember who it was. For Pete's Sake, I can't even remember which list it was on!!! Please forgive me, and reply to this. I'll file it away next time... hope I can find it after that. You can really put a lot of stuff on a couple of 5 Gig hard disks. I really do think I am approaching information overload... let's see which list is this? Do I ever talk face-to-face to people anymore? Where is this leading?

Peace, Terry

On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:49:43 EST lawson98@juno.com (MARK LAWSON) writes: >>From: Victoria Alderman <alderman@flash.net>
>>At Baylor we always do transvaginal measurements of cervical length.
>>So Mark...yeah buddy...I think you could be missin' the show if ya'll
>
>>aint looking from real close... Victoria
>
>Yo....you think, uh..... and I ain't your buddy.... So you don't
>measure cervix by TA but you can tell me I'm wrong ??? That sounds
>like real science to us outerloopers...... I suggest that since you
>do do some TA along with your TV that you might make an attempt to
>look at the cervix and compare measurements before you roast me .....
> I don't do TV on a regular basis, ..... yet in the couple of months
>that I've been measuring the cervix, I have found that its not really
>that hard to visualize on a wide range of gestational ages and varied
>body habituses (excuse the spelling of the plural....could it be
>habiti ???) You TV everybody people might at least consider the
>posibility......
>Thank God for the John Hobbins of the world that remind us the CRL
>length charts we still use were made with static imagers.... That's
>Rohe, Picker 80L, Unirad and Searle when sonographers practiced
>science.
>
>I don't mind being wrong....I resent being told that I'm "missin' the
>show" offhand.... Your full contrition is expected.
>
>Mark "Jingle my Bells" Lawson
>
>Victoria, et al.... I know this reads worst than I meant it to be but
>I'm submitting it anyway cause I got this reaction disorder when I
>should respond.... Like someone talking about my Momma.. or my
>science......or, or, ultrasound teks :-(
>
>Would this version be better....
>Dear Miss Victoria,
>Thank you for informing me that you think I could be "missin the
>show".... I'm sure only the Baylor way is right but what is a poor
>country sonographer to do???? I am humbled by the city folks again
>and dream of the day I can be like you. If only Robinson could have
>the wherewithall you have!!! Best wishes in your futher endeavors :-)
> I hope you will save me a seat for the next show.
>
>Yours in Science,
>Mark Lawson
>
>Or maybe I should say it this way...... ...well maybe dear friends
>could help me out here....how would you respond to this friendly
>holiday jester, I know she meant it light hearted..... Like someone
>asking your sign.... I just can't help it today..... ??? M.

Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote

use when must restrict search to only the ultrasound forum...
Enter search keywords:
	Returns per screen: Require all keywords: