|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: "non-medical use of sonography"From: Terry J DuBose (tjdubose@juno.com)Fri Dec 19 19:18:33 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_53dc.5554.78d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I do not know of anyone looking at the outcomes from "fetal bonding" sonography. But if by "usual outcome parameters", you mean gestational age & weight at birth, APGARS, anomalies found/missed, it would be interesting. The problem would be controlling for the confounding variables; I don't think folks going to "fetal photo studios" are usually worrying about money for food. On the other end there would have to be some kind of control for who is operating the machine. Is it a perinatal sonographer with 20 years experience, or a profiteer with a weekend of tutoring on how to turn on the machine and burn a CD, and how to control for that variable? A very difficult study indeed. Terry J DuBose On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:14:20 -0600 DoctorJoe@aol.com writes: In a message dated 12/19/03 08:31:29, duboseterryj@uams.edu writes: For expectant parents, 4-D ultrasound is all the rage, and it's all in the details: close-up views of chubby cheeks and little button noses long before a baby is born. But the FDA calls the trend a misuse of medical technology. We'll explore the issue. I think a RCT of 4-D "misue" versus regular use would be interesting... The endpoints would be the usual outcome parameters, but the premise would be that "fetal bonding" was beneficial to the mother's and baby's outcome. Or is someone already studying that out there? Joe P. ----__JNP_000_53dc.5554.78d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> I do not know of anyone looking at the outcomes from "fetal bonding"
sonography. But if by "usual outcome parameters", you mean gestational age
& weight at birth, APGARS, anomalies found/missed, it would be
interesting.
The problem would be controlling for the confounding variables; I don't
think folks going to "fetal photo studios" are usually worrying about money
for food. On the other end there would have to be some kind of
control for who is operating the machine. Is it a perinatal sonographer
with 20 years experience, or a profiteer with a weekend of tutoring on how to
turn on the machine and burn a CD, and how to control for that
variable? A very difficult study indeed.
Terry J DuBose
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:14:20 -0600 DoctorJoe@aol.com writes:
For expectant parents, 4-D ultrasound is all the rage, and it's all in the details: close-up views of chubby cheeks and little button noses long before a baby is born. But the FDA calls the trend a misuse of medical technology. We'll explore the issue. I think a RCT of 4-D "misue" versus regular use would be interesting... The endpoints would be the usual outcome parameters, but the premise would be that "fetal bonding" was beneficial to the mother's and baby's outcome. Or is someone already studying that out there? Joe P.
|
|
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: Wed Dec 2 05:32:19 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.