|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Computerized Reporting PackagesFrom: Terry J DuBose (tjdubose@juno.com)Sat Oct 25 07:19:17 2003
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_1af3.6701.3bf2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rich, I agree with Dr. Moroder, the fetus does sound like asymmetric IUGR. Did you do a RI on the umbilical arteries and MCA? As to computerized reporting packages, I do trust them, but I am not familiar with OB/WIN. For growth differentials, I think all exam calculations need to be done using the same calculation package or charts... there are slight differences in many. It would be interesting and instructive if, as Dr. Moroder suggested, you could post the LMP, specific dates and all measurements for each examination. Then perhaps we both (& others?) could plug the data into our favorite software package and see the various results. Of course, if the case was already at 39.5 weeks yesterday with IUGR, this is going to be an academic exercise. Please let us know what the outcome is. Thanks, Terry
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:15:19 -0500 ridem@msn.com (Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT )
writes:
> I had a patient today who was 39.5 weeks and "small for dates", to <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> Rich, I agree with Dr. Moroder, the
fetus does sound like asymmetric IUGR.
Did you do a RI on the umbilical arteries and MCA? As to computerized reporting packages,
I do trust them, but I am not familiar with OB/WIN. For growth differentials, I think
all exam calculations need to be done using the same calculation package or
charts... there are slight differences in many. It would be interesting and instructive
if, as Dr. Moroder suggested, you could post the LMP, specific dates and all
measurements for each examination.
Then perhaps we both (& others?) could plug the data into our
favorite software package and see the various results. Of course, if the case was already
at 39.5 weeks yesterday with IUGR, this is going to be an academic
exercise. Please let us know what the outcome
is. Thanks, Terry On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:15:19 -0500 ridem@msn.com (Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT )
writes:
> I had a patient today who was 39.5 weeks and "small for dates", to > check > amniotic fluid volume and fetal weight. The AFI was 6, which is > considered "low-normal" here. Subjectively, it looked like > oligohydramnos. I work at an off-site, there is no physician > on-site, > no TeleRad no PACS. > > The BPD and head circumference were in the 56% range, BUT the femur > length and abdominal circumference were <5% for gestational age. > (A > full 3 weeks behind expected range). Patient had been scanned at 6 > , > 18, and 25 weeks. Previous interval growth parameters were normal. > > My question is this : the reporting package we use (OB/WIN) reported > the > estimated fetal weight at 6lbs / 9 oz- which is in the 47 th > percentile > with this software package. Obviously something is wrong here. > > How much trust do you place in automated reporting packages? > > >
|
|
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: Thu Oct 2 05:19:23 2008 |
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.