home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!ole!rwing!fnx!sgihbtn!jhill
- From: jhill@sierra.com (Julie Hill)
- Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
- Subject: Re: OFA - Is it worth appealing?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.214218.8310@sierra.com>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 21:42:18 GMT
- Sender: news@sierra.com
- Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc., Kirkland, Wa
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: snomas
-
- In article <1992Dec16.182440.26724@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> janicki@tuxedo.enet.dec.com writes:
- >
- >(1) The xrays are randomly assigned to 3 radiologists from a group of
- >(I think) 20 or so who have obtained their certification from the AVMA.
- >These vets know how to read xrays. The local vets (even Dr. Hank) do not
- >see the number of xrays these radiologists do. The fact that you appealed
- >and got the same result, most likely means that 6 radiologists looked at
- >the xrays. Each radiologists (independent of the others) returns a rating
- >and the ratings are averaged. In order to get a dysplastic rating, at
- >least 2 of the radiologists have say the hips looks dysplastic.
-
- I just had my Bloodhound bitch xrayed, and my vet said said that they submit
- the xrays to 3 radiologists, and the dog is given the worst rating of the 3
- opinions.
-
-
- Ok, here is another story. A friend's Malmute was given a rating of "mildily
- dysplastic" at the age of 2. Two years later, my friend submitted new xrays,
- and the rating was changed to "good". The reason for the different rating
- was that the bones and joints had not changed at all in two years.
-
- Julie
- --
- ********************************************************************************
- * Julie Hill Sierra Geophysics, Inc. Kirkland, WA *
- * jhill@sierra.com
- ********************************************************************************
-