Talk:3D ultrasound

message: I've added a  tag to the statement of the inventors of 4D because the noted inventors appear to be one of several possible candidates according to .--Gareth8118 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I've

message: In an article by Asim Kurjak and his team, , he concluded:
".... the main advantages of three-dimensional ultrasound in perinatal medicine and antenatal diagnosis include scanning in the coronal plane, improved assessment of complex anatomic structures, surface analysis of minor defects, volumetric measuring of organs, "plastic" transparent imaging of fetal skeleton, spatial presentation of blood flow arborization and, finally, storage of scanned volumes and images. It is our decided opinion that three-dimensional sonography has gained a valuable place in prenatal diagnosis, becoming a necessity for every modern perinatal unit .... ".
Tommy17v (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer on: How useful is 3d ultrasound for clinical purposes?

message: In response to (talk)'s comment above: "It looks to me as if it reveals little or no internal structure of the fetus - you can get the shape, but not see inside." Many obstetric 3D ultrasound scanners have tools to create a surface rendered view of some part of the 3D dataset. The rendered views of foetal faces etc. that are quite commonly seen do not constitute all of the image data from a 3D ultrasound scan, but only a surface chosen by the user. As much internal detail as in standard medical ultrasound scans is available from a 3D ultrasound scan. It all depends on what the user wants to display.
Robotshed (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on utility of 3D ultrasound and internal structure of foetus

message: This entire article sounds like it was written by people who sell this service. Leuchars (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have added templates for NPOV Check and Peacock.  The positive representations of 3D ultrasound seem to be full of weasel words and peacock terms and bereft of citations. Lineslarge (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising language throughout

message: I think the likening of 3D ultrasound to 3D movies is incorrect and should be removed from the lead - it has no citation. Lineslarge (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The pictures and video in this article showing the 3D/4D ultrasounds are good for the 11 week old, but the 20 week old looks like older technology.  With my undergraduate degree in physics, I find that the technology to be amazing and I think the pictures in this article do not do it justice (family just gave us some pictures of their 3D ultrasound).  I am new to editing Wiki, and am unfamiliar with the process.  What would it take to add pictures of an older fetus/baby (such as 30 or 35 weeks), and more recent technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsfunambulator (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some images that you can legally share (not under copyright by somebody else), then you can upload them pretty easily and put them into the article. See Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. Staecker (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to date pictures of older babies to better showcase the technology