|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: FHR on the webFrom: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)Mon Nov 17 07:56:04 1997
At Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Cheri Van Hoover wrote: > >Peter Wein wrote: > >> To start a different thread, could those members who advocate 3 cm/min explain what the advantage is, given that one can learn to interpret either speed satisfactorily once you are used to it. Is there and reason to use 3 times as much paper except to make the company selling it 3 times as much profit? I would love to know. >> Peter Wein > >Julian Parer at UCSF lectures frequently on FHR interpretation. It's his contention that STV (BTB) can not be adequately evaluated using 1 cm/min. paper speed. He feels that this and other subtle signs can only be accurately assessed at the faster speed where greater detail can be seen. > >-- >Cheri Van Hoover, CNM >Midwifery Service at Stanford > BRAVO! nothing more to add after that marvelously succinct post. art
-- art fougner, md SonoScan/Genetic Sciences forest hills, ny evsono@pipeline.com
|
|
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 05:22:03 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.