Don't usally copy and paste text of email from others, but this is for informational purposes so I'll take the chance.

If you think this is worthwhile to bring back and go one step further, simplify it with a rating system on quality of film, please let Dr. Keller hear from you.

------------

Dr. Keller, thank you for your quick reply. Perhaps it is time to consider bringing the practice of reporting the radiographic technique and patient positioning back. This would be valuable information for both the vet and owner to have. It is fine that the consulting radiologists have the ability to reject an image, but we're not getting any information right now as to OFA's opinion as to the quality of the film... obviously there is a margin allowed before OFA deems radiographs poor enough to reject. Ideally optimal positioning is desired for most accurate grading. The rating system would be a great help.

Is this something you would consider bringing back if there were enough requests??

Valerie Whalen



On 7/19/2010 10:43 AM, ofa wrote:
>
> In the early years OFA did report on the radiographic technique and patient positioning. The OFA board stopped this practice in the mid to late 70’s. In addition to the staff radiologist evaluating the image for technical issues the outside consulting radiologist’s also have the ability to reject an image based on positioning/technique issues.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> G.G. Keller, D.V.M., MS
>
> Diplomate ACVR
>
> Chief of Veterinary Services
>
> Orthopedic Foundation for Animals
>
>
>
> ggk/cas
>
>
>
> From: Ambridge Labradors
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:31 AM
>

>
> Hello,
> I would appreciate if you would pass this email on to Dr. Keller, or the Board of OFA, or who ever makes ultimate decisions on OFA procedures.
>
> We as breeders do not need to be radiologists to see poor positioning in some of the films being graded by OFA and NOT always being sent back to the vet for a re-do. I don't think any of us know at what point OFA determines that they are of poor enough quality to be sent back for a redo... just how bad do they have to be?? I know when I have films shot, I want proper positioning. Obviously positioning (and clarity) does factor in to the ability to most accurately grade the joint.
>
> Some have made the suggestion that maybe only OFA certified vets/radiologists shoot fillms for OFA submission. I don't believe this is the total answer... maybe a start.
>
> >From the OFA site re Handling and Procedures:
> "The board-certified veterinary radiologist on staff at the OFA screens the radiographs for diagnostic quality. If it is not suitable for diagnostic quality (poor positioning, too light, too dark or image blurring from motion), it is returned to the referring veterinarian with a written request that it be repeated. "
>
> Here is my suggestion, which I believe will make a difference! Since you already have a radiologist on staff who is screening the films for diagnostic quality soon as they arrive and before they are sent off to the panel of radiologists for grading... why would it not be possible to have that radiologist assign a 'grade' re quality of film (taking into account positioning and clarity of film)? Possibly have a 0 - 5 rating, with 0 being "Optimal", 1 being "Good", 3 being "Marginal", and 4 or 5 being outright poor and sent back to the vet to re-do as not useful for diagnostic use.
>
> You would not have to post these findings in the online database, just include the rating on the report sent back to the vet and the dog's owner. It could read something such as,
> "This hip joint conformation was evaluated as FAIR;
> based on Marginal (3) quality of radiograph. "
>
> This would give more info to the vet shooting the films and the owner of the dog. In such a case as the example I cited, it would allow the owner of the dog to decide if they think it's worthwhile to reshoot the films with better positioning and resubmit, possibly for getting better grade.... yes, we all personally know of instances where this has happened. It would also provide important feedback to the vet on the job he is doing re positioning and clarity of xray.
>
> I think it will also make vets take the time to learn proper positioning when they start seeing their films are getting a rating or 3, 4 or 5 (or they will stop doing films for OFA submission). I can't emphasize enough how valuable this information would be to both vets and dog owners. I sure wouldn't prefer a grading based on Marginal quality of films, although OFA may find the xray acceptable enough.... this would give me enough information to look elsewhere for a vet to shoot my films.
>
> I don't see where the implementation of this procedure would be costly to OFA either timewise or in clerical reporting.
>
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>
> Valerie Whalen

Thank you Valerie.

Val, thanks so much for this effort. Please keep us posted.

It is good that they are open to the proposal. Any ideas of how it used to be? any old timers that might remember how the grading was done?

Haven't heard back yet if they'd take it under consideration... I'd guess though that when they get to the office Monday mornings they have several things that need attention.

Should have said most recent correspondence was at top, so have to start reading from the bottom.

Will post if I hear anything.

Saw your recent post in the other thread with the Prelim view that got a Fair (one that came back Excellent on redo a few months later). Wouldn't it be interesting if OFA explained why the staff radiologist didn't reject that Prelim film (would one the 3 on panel caught it if the film was for a Final?). Thanks for posting those examples.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not down on OFA... but sure seems there's room for improvements to be made.

I would encourage anyone who feels similarly, even if you don't agree with my suggestion or maybe have another idea, let OFA hear from you. Don't forget we are paying for a service. Many voices are better than one.

Val, just so you, know, and I am sure you already know this... Prelims are read just by Dr Keller, not the three person panel, like the finals are. Thank you for bringing this up though, good topic, and maybe the end result will be that we get better quality films to submit.

"Wouldn't it be interesting if OFA explained why the staff radiologist and the 3 radiologists on the panel didn't reject that Prelim film."

Yep, soon as I logged off and walked away I remembered it was a Prelim (or I should say I remembered just one reads Prelims, blame it on a duhh moment LOL)... came back and made a edit in the post.

Dr. Keller is the usual reader for prelims. He is gone on many occasions for conferences, etc. and he does take vacations as well In his absence, another of the local radiologists takes on the task of grading prelims. In OLD, OLD times, they were all sent to Dr. Mostosky at Michigan State (for consistency of rating). In later years, Dr. Corley did them and now the bulk are rated by Dr. Keller. I find it hard to believe tht Dr. Keller rated that hip as "fair" even though the film had terrible density and contrast. He and I seldom disagree on ratings and I called it an excellent despite the quality

I never knew only Dr. Keller read prelims. I thought it was 1 radiologist only, sometimes Dr. Keller but not always him.

Regardless of which vet does, any reading someone should be able pick up on poor placement if us breeders can.

I show xrays to breeder friends before submitting for their opinions 1st if possible. My 2 that failed were seen by 2 breeders who said the placement was way off, after the fact & on duplicate films I paid for & saved.

Here is latest correspondence. It probably wouldn't' hurt in the meantime if anyone else wrote OFA letting them know they are in favor of such a thing.



On 7/19/2010 5:08 PM, ofa wrote:
>
> We can certainly present this request to the OFA board at the October board meeting.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> G.G. Keller, D.V.M., MS
>
> Diplomate ACVR
>
> Chief of Veterinary Services
>
> Orthopedic Foundation for Animals
>
>
>
> ggk/cas

Thank you very much Dr. Keller for being open to suggestions! Greatly appreciated. I think it would be wonderful if they could at least go back to reporting back on the radiographic technique and patient positioning. I think vets and most breeders would understand those written findings, possibly someone such as a pet owner though could understand better if some kind of simplified assessment re quality (i.e., Optimal, Good, Marginal, etc.) was included as well.

Again, thank you.

Valerie

How is it that so much stock is put into this mystical OFA rating? It is not very scientific, if we breeders are even asking, "where did you take your dog when you got an excellent rating", or "does anyone know of a good vet to take dogs to for OFA".

That indicates to me that more attention should be paid to the vet taking the photo than the actual radiograph.

Why? It seems ridiculous to me. Just to get a subjective rating which is primarily meaningless unless you consider the advertising value.

X-rays are like any other kind of photograph - except they are only images of shadows. Any photograph can show a dog out of condition. Any photograph can catch a dog in an awkward position or slightly off balance. Any photograph can suffer from poor exposure and contrast. The same is true of x-rays. The positioning and condition of the subject as well as the skill of the photographer make a world of difference in the photographic image.

Would you expect to make a breeding decision about a dog based on poor photographs? Could you tell about expression if the photo was blurry or too dark? Well, don't expect radiologists to consult a crystal ball to determine the hip status of a poor film. ALL ratings are subjective in that humans determine what to measure and how to interpret the films - including PennHIP. The quality of the x-ray DOES affect the opinion, just like any other photograph.

OFA is the toughest rating system in the world - and I have dealt with all of them over the decades. One of the reasons that OFA is respected in other countries is because the "subjective" ratings are only given on adult dogs (over 24 months) and are based on a consensus opinion. The simple evaluative ratings are also useable by even relative novices who might not understand the details of numeric results.

If you see no value in an OFA rating, then don't use OFA - but your derogatory pot shots are out of order. There is a saying in farm country, don't curse the farmer with your mouth full. Something similar applies here. Don't denegrate the toughest hip system in the world while enjoying the superior hip status of the breeding stock developed through use of the system. Decades of hip evaluations and peer pressure to improve the ratings has resulted in a better "average" hip in this country among those breeders who use OFA (or PennHIP as well). Show a little respect for those breeders and the OFA system that has made Lab hips sounder over the decades.

And on the plus side for OFA is that they have a semi open database for final results at least for doing some research.