-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: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Mon Oct 27 06:53:22 2003 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Allen Worrall: "Re: Scanning the lower UT segment post prior C-section to evaluate VBAC" Previous message: art fougner, md: "Re: Scanning the lower UT segment post prior C-section to evaluate VBAC" In reply to: Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT : "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Next in thread: Wolfgang Moroder, M.D.: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Reply: Wolfgang Moroder, M.D.: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Rich something is wrong with either the software or the interpretation. according to Hadlock "Radiology" 181:129 - 133, 1991 article entitled "In utero analysis of fetal growth: A sonographic weight standard," an EFW of 2900 gm would be in approximately the 12th percentile for a gestational age of 39 wks. His table is similar to Williams California birth weight table published in the 80's. art At Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT wrote: > >Hi Art: > >Both the ultrasound unit and OB/Win program are set for Hadlock et al, >growth charts. > >And, internally within our department, we only use the US calculated GA >to set an estimated due date when a prior study, done in this >department, is available from 6-12 weeks. The OB's sometimes choose a >different date, but for our reporting it is always based on the very >early US estimated GA. All of the off-sites use the same equipment and >same OB/Win database, and we do not "round-off" the raw data prior to >entry. > >I apologise for not asking my original question with all the info on >hand. For simplicity sake, I with-held the fact that this baby had a >documented SUA, a grade 3 placenta, and a BPP of 4/8 (no breathing, no >limb movement or flex/ext)over 45 minutes. > >Mostly I was concerned about the disparity between the software programs >(machine vs reporting software.) > >At Sat, 25 Oct 2003, art fougner, md wrote: >> >>Rich >> >>two points - first, was this percentile assigned based on the ultrasound >>measured age ( which it appears to be at first read) or the true >>gestational age? second, what is the database used to generate the >>percentiles? >> >>art >> -- art fougner, md ich bin ein New Yorker Next message: Allen Worrall: "Re: Scanning the lower UT segment post prior C-section to evaluate VBAC" Previous message: art fougner, md: "Re: Scanning the lower UT segment post prior C-section to evaluate VBAC" In reply to: Rich Dempsey RDMS/RVT : "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Next in thread: Wolfgang Moroder, M.D.: "Re: Computerized Reporting Packages" Reply: Wolfgang Moroder, M.D.: "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: Tue Mar 2 05:35:01 2010

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.