<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: acog</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'acog'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22acog%22&t=%22acog%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:11:57 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Kudos To ACOG: A Moral Victory for Pregnant Women</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4709205&amp;cid=t_154926_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fkudos-to-acog-a-moral-victory-for-pregnant-women%2F2011.04.13</link>
            <description>This post is written as a follow-up to The Hijacking of Pregnant Women. 
It is said that sometimes you have to rock the boat in order to shift the course of progress. Well today pregnant women have reason to celebrate. The winds of change are apparent.
Bowing under pressure, K-V Pharmaceutical Company reduced the price of Makena from $1500 to $690. Makena is the trade name for hydroxyprogesterone caproate or 17OHP. It is a drug recently approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce premature deliveries before 37 weeks if it is given before 21 weeks gestation.  It has been used for years as an off-label drug and costs approximately $10 to $20 to make by compound pharmacists. When the FDA gave K-V an exclusive right to manufacture the drug, their integrity flew out the window....</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4709205</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:00:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4709205</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sunday News Round-Up, Now With Fewer Omitted “G”s</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4554594&amp;cid=t_154926_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2F06%2Fsunday-news-round-up-now-with-fewer-omitted-gs%2F</link>
            <description>A few things of interest from the past week: 
RHRC has a whole series on obstetric fistula.
March 3 was International Sex Workers Rights Day. 
As Naomi shared in the comments of a previous post, Rachel Maddow recently had on two Republican women who are Wyoming state reps and who reject recent state anti-abortion efforts. The two women describe themselves as small government conservatives, and state that they don&amp;#8217;t believe government should interfere in such private decisions. The video is here, with a transcript mode option. 
Book Nerds! Deeply Problematic has an essay, &amp;#8220;Hermione Granger and the Failures of Feminism.&amp;#8221; It focuses primarily on how Hermione tries to bust in and forcibly &amp;#8220;free&amp;#8221; the house elves without actually talking to them about what they want...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4554594</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:36:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4554594</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Prenatal Vitamins: Are They Necessary, Sufficient, Safe?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4086266&amp;cid=t_154926_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fprenatal-vitamins-are-they-necessary-sufficient-safe%2F2010.10.20</link>
            <description>What is in a prenatal vitamin? Why do most doctors recommend them? Is there any evidence taking them is worthwhile? I decided recently that I would read through the ingredients of these vitamins, often touted as “essential vitamins and nutrients, crucial for the healthy development of your baby.” Hmmm. Does that mean eating traces of polyvinyl alcohol every day is beneficial?
The fine print ingredients of such brands as “One A Day”, “Centrum Materna”, “Rite Aid” and even the prescription only “Prenate Elite” are a confusing mess of milligrams, international units, RDA’s, and chemicals. As the makers of Centrum explain, “It is very challenging to formulate vitamins and minerals without the use of non-medicinal ingredients which serve to keep the product stable and to...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4086266</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:00:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4086266</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Pap Smear Guidelines: The Right Care Or Rationed Care?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3798560&amp;cid=t_154926_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fnew-pap-smear-guidelines-the-right-care-or-rationed-care%2F2010.07.28</link>
            <description>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently reiterated their position that Pap smears should be performed on healthy women starting at age 21. This is different from the past which recommended screening for cervical cancer at either three years after the time a woman became sexually active or age 21, whichever occurred first.
How will the public respond to this change?
Over the past year there have been plenty of announcements from the medical profession regarding to the appropriateness of PSA screening for prostate cancer and the timing of mammogram screening for breast cancer. Understandably, some people may view these changes in recommendations as the rationing of American healthcare. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at Saving Mo...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3798560</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3798560</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Experts Rethink Practice of Banning Vaginal Delivery After Caesarian Section</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3776318&amp;cid=t_154926_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fexperts-rethink-practice-banning-vaginal-delivery-caesarian-section%2F</link>
            <description>Experts at the American College of Gynecology (ACOG) have issued guidelines that state that women should be allowed to attempt vaginal delivery after a previous caesarian section or C section. Dr. William Grobman of Northwestern University comments. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3776318</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:18:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3776318</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An ACOG Note from MLA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3595530&amp;cid=t_154926_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F24%2Fan-acog-note-from-mla%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;m at the Medical Library Association conference in D.C. this week (hey, I &amp;#8216;m one of the bloggers over here in the interim), and had a chance to ask an ACOG rep a question as they have a publications exhibit at the conference. My question concerned the issue of ACOG recommendations and the fact that they are completely removed from online sources when a new version is issued. As was explained to me &amp;#8211; and as I expected &amp;#8211; many of the changes are minor, and it&amp;#8217;s desirable to take the old versions away immediately so clinicians don&amp;#8217;t follow the old guidelines. 
My concern, though, is that it makes it really difficult, then, to compare the old and new version if one wants to see them side by side and compare documents/changes. Immediate removal is probably g...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3595530</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 23:54:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3595530</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Finally, A Man Who Really Knows Women</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3378414&amp;cid=t_154926_87_f&amp;fid=34872&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblisstree.com%2Ffeel%2Ffinally-a-man-who-really-knows-women%2F</link>
            <description>Meet Edward J. Gill, MD. By day, he&amp;#8217;s Associate Professor of Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, Director of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, and Program Director of fellowship training in female pelvic medicine and surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. Which is a long-winded way of saying that he&amp;#8217;s really smart. By night, he practices yoga, swims, cooks, and builds furniture in his wood shop. Luckily for us, Dr. Gill will contribute regular posts to Blisstree and answer questions related to all of our &amp;#8220;lady problems&amp;#8221;.


Seriously, why do men become gynecologists? (Sorry, but we’ve seen “The Hand that Rocks the Cradle,” and just had to ask.)
That certainly comes up once in a while. In medical school, after ...</description>
            <author>Healthbolt</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3378414</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:30:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3378414</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Designer Obstetrics: Cesarean Section on Demand</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3231442&amp;cid=t_154926_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FNtSnC_Go22M%2Fdesigner-obstetrics-cesarean-section-on.html</link>
            <description>Should women be able to request a cesarean section to deliver their baby just because they can?

 Cesarean Section on demand is defined as a primary or first cesarean section at the request of the mother in the absence of any medical or obstetrical indication. A cesarean section is usually done for maternal or fetal reasons in accordance with accepted medical practice and guidelines set forth by the American College of OB/GYN (ACOG). An electively requested cesarean section in an uncomplicated pregnancy has traditionally been considered inappropriate and not done by most obstetricians. However, in recent years this belief has been challenged and more obstetricians are honoring their patients decisions. ACOG, in their committee opinion No. 394, December 2007, outlines the most recent guidel...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3231442</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:36:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3231442</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>At Our Bodies Our Blog: ACOG’s Home Birth Survey</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2761805&amp;cid=t_154926_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F09%2F03%2Fat-our-bodies-our-blog-acog%25e2%2580%2599s-home-birth-survey%2F</link>
            <description>At Our Bodies Our Blog, I have a post on ACOG’s recently posted survey on the &amp;#8220;extent of the problem&amp;#8221; of home birth transfers, criticisms of their approach/method vs. their stated goals, and the response from home birth advocates. There&amp;#8217;s a pretty lively comment thread going, if you care to join us.  
Posted in Access, Rights, &amp; Choice, Birth (Source: Women's Health News)</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2761805</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:04:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2761805</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>At Our Bodies Our Blog: ACOG &amp; Rural Health, Double Dose, and Language Matters</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2255665&amp;cid=t_154926_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F10%2Fat-our-bodies-our-blog-acog-rural-health-double-dose-and-language-matters%2F</link>
            <description>At Our Bodies Our Blog, I have details from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist&amp;#8217;s new committee opinion on rural health - it includes suggestions for physicians and positions on access to reproductive health care. A commenter points out that one way ACOG might support rural women&amp;#8217;s health is to support the midwives who would provide care in those areas. Come on over and share your thoughts.
Christine also has a Double Dose with lots of other topics, including environmental exposures and breast cancer, drug labeling, gender-neutral pronouns, domestic violence victims and technology, and more. 
This item C links to from Sociological Images definitely caught my attention, on the differences in emphasis between English and Spanish versions of a Kaiser facility&amp;#8...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2255665</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:59:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2255665</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Planning a pregnancy?  Read this first.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2195224&amp;cid=t_154926_117_f&amp;fid=36026&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everydayhealth.com%2Fblog%2Fzimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use%2Fplanning-a-pregnancy-read-this-first%2F</link>
            <description>Most women are aware of the need to follow certain nutrition and lifestyle guidelines after they become pregnant, but did you know that it&amp;#8217;s actually important to begin these regimens well before you begin to start a family? Most likely you knew about recommendations to take pre-natal vitamins and not to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes during pregnancy, but it&amp;#8217;s equally important to start these behaviors much earlier, before you plan to become pregnant, so that you&amp;#8217;ll be &amp;#8220;covered&amp;#8221; from the moment pregnancy occurs. But recent research has found that few women follow pre-pregnancy recommendations. In fact, a study just published online in the British Medical Journal found that only three percent of women who became pregnant were taking the recommended vitamins...</description>
            <author>Dr. Z's Medical Report</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2195224</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:11:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2195224</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Have an EMR that Duplicates Your Work?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1912567&amp;cid=t_154926_113_f&amp;fid=38130&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tempdev.net%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D255</link>
            <description>Ben and I were having sushi today and discussing the OB workflow within NextGen. I really like the OB templates and it&amp;#8217;s really nice that the questions and format are quite similar to the ACOG Antepartum Record. This form is pretty much industry standard to be sent to a hospital when a woman is going into labor. Here&amp;#8217;s the caveat: NextGen doesn&amp;#8217;t create an ACOG Antepartum Record. It creates this document that summarizes the information, but would be very difficult for a hospital to parse through when information is needed quickly. So what does a practice do that needs this form and is on the EMR? They would have to look through their templates and mark off all the appropriate information on paper! A little ridiculous isn&amp;#8217;t it?
Some of the doctors I work with basical...</description>
            <author>Implementing EMRs</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1912567</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:47:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1912567</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>By Secretary or By Professional Report</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1709713&amp;cid=t_154926_131_f&amp;fid=35743&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthegenesherpa.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F08%2Fby-secretary-or-by-professional-report.html</link>
            <description>A recent study caught my eye. Done by multiple centers..... from the Division of Laboratory Systems,* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; the Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York; the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York; ARUP Laboratories and the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; San Ramon Valley Primary Care, San Ramon, California; the Genetic Services Laboratory,** Sequenom Incorporated, San Diego, California; and the Department of Human Genetics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.What did they investigate? Simple....how genetic tests were orderded and how results were given. What really g...</description>
            <author>Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1709713</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:31:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1709713</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Low Dose Recommended for Pregnant Women with Asthma</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1204678&amp;cid=t_154926_97_f&amp;fid=35050&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmaGazette%2F%7E3%2F229189316%2Flow_dose_recommended_for_pregn.html</link>
            <description>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a new Practice Bulletin that recommends that pregnant women with asthma should continue to use their asthma medication but in the lowest dosage needed to control their symptoms.The bulletin states that women with moderate to severe asthma must be monitored for &amp;quot;fetal growth restriction and signs of possible preterm birth&amp;quot; throughout the pregnancy.&amp;quot;Previously, there was limited guidance regarding the management of asthma during pregnancy,&amp;quot; Dr. Andrew J. Satin, chairman of the ACOG&amp;#39;s Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics, said in a prepared statement. &amp;quot;With the growing number of asthmatics in the U.S., it became a priority to formalize recommendations for ob-gyns, who will likely see an ...</description>
            <author>PharmaGazette</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1204678</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:00:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1204678</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ACOG’s “What Women Should Know About Cancer” guide</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=999574&amp;cid=t_154926_117_f&amp;fid=36026&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.healthtalk.com%2Fzimney%2Fwomen-test-your-knowledge-about-cancer%2F</link>
            <description>Let’s start with a HealhtTalk pop quiz. True or false: Women with no family history of cancer are at low risk of developing cancer themselves?
Answer: false. While it’s true that having a family history of cancer increases your risk to a small degree, the vast majority of cancers occur in people with no family history of the disease. But in a recent survey, nearly two thirds of women (63 percent) mistakenly answered that lack of family history equates with a low personal cancer risk. That’s the bad news. The good news is that as many as half of all cancer deaths could be avoided through sensible lifestyle habits (not smoking, eating properly, exercising) and getting routine recommended cancer screening (mammography, colonoscopy and pap smears, for breast, colon and cervical cancer re...</description>
            <author>Dr. Z's Medical Report</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=999574</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:17:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">999574</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

