|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Seeking for further studiesFrom: Yaw Amo Wiafe (wadart@hotmail.com)Tue Aug 16 16:07:15 2005
Received: from appsrvnt92.wellstar.org (mail2.wellstar.org [162.41.8.56]) by dns.obgyn.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/dsb-1.1) with ESMTP id j7GL79g11072 for <ultrasound@obgyn.net>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:07:10 -0500 Received: from 192.168.250.53 by appsrvnt92.wellstar.org with ESMTP ( SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.3)); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:12:52 -0400 Received: from WHS-MTA by swsctrm2 with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:06:58 -0400 Message-ID: <s3021d32.085@swsctrm2> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:06:23 -0400 From: "James Smeltzer" <James.Smeltzer@wellstar.org> To: ultrasound@obgyn.net Subject: Re: Seeking for further studies MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6F1C895E33169-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi! Hadlock seems to have a formula for all occasions, and the one I use Does use HC. When I had a separate business and wrote my own report generator in dBase, it had 17 formulae and reported the average and Hadlock. It sounds to me like Phillips has a mis-specification in the formula. I would suggest asking a buddy with the reporting software to enter the numbers and check the machines that way, or enter the same #s in a third machine to check the other two. The EFWs are formula-driven and do not use tables except to get from the EFW to the %ile. Jim
>>> jworrall@alaska.net 8/14/2005 5:50:13 PM >>> I agree. In fact, even when an ultrasound machine and a reporting software say they are using the same table, I think there may be differences in interpolation when a measurement falls between one of the points listed in the table. Or perhaps it is the way the values are entered in the table. The reporting software I use (BABE) permits the user to enter tables. I do not know enough about statistics to even enter the tables correctly, or I will enter only the 50th percentile value (due to laziness) and not the 5th and 95th percentile value, and then I get some pretty weird percentiles for CRL or humerus length, for example. Actually it is a large amount of work to enter a complete table, one value at a time, without error. Some third party vendor should offer those tables in a form that can be entered or downloaded into one's reporting software just by a mouse click. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Hadlock and Shepard fetal weight tables do NOT use HC, at least the tables that I use. So when I am asked to do a limited scan (76815) for EFW and AFI (fairly common request in the 3rd trimester) I may not do the HC. Am I wrong? Allen
> ----- Original Message ----- You stated that the two machines are using the "same hadlock measurement", but you are not getting the same result. Is that correct. By "same hadlock measurement" do you mean the outer abdominal circumference, femur length, BPD, & head circumference? Hadlock published several fetal weight estimates... are you sure the algorithms use the same Hadlock formula? You will need to look at the users manual for each machine to determine which Hadlock publication and which forumula is used. This is an interesting problem of sonography because there have been so many formulas published for the various parameters. Please let us know what you find. Thanks, Terry ebrillo@kingdomhospital.com wrote: i have a querry regarding the standard efw formula, how effective and accurate is efw for ob us how come if i use THE GE MACHINE we have here9GE 400/ge 700) I COULD GET EFW closed to weight the fetus when delivered but if i used envisor philipps there is a very big descrepancy more than 500 grams same hadlock measurement pls/kindly explain to me i even ask the engener of phillips
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confidentiality Disclaimer <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and /or proprietary information in the possession of WellStar Health System, Inc. ("WellStar") and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom addressed. This email may contain information that is held to be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized access, dissemination, distribution or copying of any information from this email is strictly prohibited, and may subject you to criminal and/or civil liability. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete this email and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. ================================================================
|
|
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 05:19:59 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.