-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: Computerized Reporting Packages From: Allen Worrall (jworrall@alaska.net) Sat Oct 25 09:19:11 2003 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: art fougner, md: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Previous message: Wolfgang Moroder, M.D.: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Maybe in reply to: Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT : "Computerized Reporting Packages" Next in thread: art fougner, md: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" I also have used a computer software reporting progam (BABE) for the past12 years and have been very happy with it. There is usually a slight difference in gestational age, percentiles, EFW, etc between the printout I get from the ultrasound machine (Philips HDI 5000. I use the printout as a worksheet to help me enter the measurements into the computer program) and the results I get from the software, but it is a very small difference. First you have to find out which method of estimating fetal weight your software uses. Then go to the books and find the tables for that method and see if your software reported correctly. Probably it did. And yes, I understand the US is the only country in the world that does not use the metric system. Shame on us. Allen >----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Moroder, M.D." <wolfgang.moroder@tin.it> To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND" <ultrasound@dns.obgyn.net> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 1:57 AM Subject: Re: Computerized Reporting Packages > Hi! This baby looks quite disproportionate to me. I use always > computerized software for reporting, since 14 years, but to tell you the > truth I look first at the womb and never forget clinical judgment. > Still, those packages sometimes have flaws and somtimes I miss a comma > etc. In those cases I resort to manual charts (I love jeanty's and > Romero's blue book). Now could you write us the real measurements? and > sorry, but around here we cannot imagine anything by " 6lbs / 9 oz- ". > Ciao Wolfgang > > At Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT wrote: > > > >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? > > -- > Wolfgang Moroder, MD > Prenatal Unit > Bolzano General Hospital Italy > Next message: art fougner, md: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Previous message: Wolfgang Moroder, M.D.: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Maybe in reply to: Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT : "Computerized Reporting Packages" Next in thread: art fougner, md: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages"

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: Mon Nov 2 05:35:57 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.