|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: liability of US Endometrial ThicknessFrom: croure@ibm.netTue Mar 21 19:07:14 2000
At Tue, 21 Mar 2000, art fougner, md wrote: > >Joanne - > >definitely sounds like a false positive to me. when Goldstein first >suggested the 5 mm as a cut-off in the other direction - in other words, >women with PMB who had EM's measuring < 5 mm were NOT found to have path >in his series and he suggested that they might not need to be subjected >to the reflex biopsy that was/is the standard diagnostic test. what >happened is that this has now somehow evolved into a screen in the other >direction so that any EM measurement ABOVE 5 mm is somehow regarded as >evidence of pathology. Art, you have it right up to here. If less than 5mm no cancer and thus no need for reflex biopsy. If MORE than 5 it doesn't mean there is pathology but it doesn't mean any more that there isn't pathology so the reflex biopsy is still on. Most will be negative anyway. As for the original post, I have no idea why a thickness of 9mm occurs with atrophic endometrium as in this case. any answer to the original Dr. Bulley's question?? Carlos
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 04:46:01 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.