hip x-rays - Page 2

It's not easy for us laypeople to always be able to see why one film is rated excellent while another of seemingly equal quality receives a good. As Preston has mentioned on this board a number of times, one of the main criterium for this decision is the norberg (sp?) angle which is measured precisely by the OFA readers. It may even be read electronically now, I don't know. Any xray that does not conform to the set parameters of that angle is not going to get an excellent regardless of how great the hips look in all other areas of concern. This is something that may not be obvious to the eye of a person not well versed in reading hip xrays. If you look at the OFA stats, the breeds that tend to have dogs with the best hip ratings, more excellents, tend to produce less HD overall.

Immyjay, the "a" stamp is represented by a triangle around the "a", and underneath should be written "a" Normal, "a" fast Normal, or "a" noch Zugelassen. This is a faint stamp that does not always show well on a copy of the pedigree. If the dog was A.K.C. registered before the "a" stamp, then that stamp will be on the four-generation A.K.C. pedigree that was sent to Germany with the x-ray, and then returned. Of course the A.K.C. will have no records of the "a" stamp. If the dog has a "a" stamp, then he will be listed on the S.V.'s Zuchwert page. If the dog was registered by a registry other than the S.V., then a numeral "9" will be the first digit in his SZ Nummer. The ZW will be indicated, but you cannot tell whether the dog is "a"1, "a"2, or "a"3 unless you can find the "a"-stamped pedigree or an excellent copy. Djc, as I understand the O.F.A.'s published methodology for the use of three (3) examiners determining the final score, I will offer a slight correction per this sample: Two (2) issue an "Excellent" One (1) issues a "Good"-the dog is "Excellent". Two (2) issue a "Good" One (1) issues a "Fair"-the dog is "Good". Two (2) issue a "Fair" One (1) issues a "Good"-the dog is "Fair". Now with that said, we would tend to believe that in the vast majority of cases that all three (3) examiners would agree 100% of the time is they used "perfect and precise" measuring methods. Of course x-rays are never "perfect and precise" so there has to be a bit of room for subjective evaluation. For example the O.F.A. has been audited by an outside entity and determined to be inconsistent assigning grades to x-rays they had already graded; for as many as 50% of the grades. O.F.A.'s stance on this audit was that these "iffy" grades were mostly the result of re-grading borderline "Excellent's" and borderline "Fair's" and the evaluators did not decide the same way that they had before. Basically, instead of two (2) against one (1) this way, it was one (1) against (2) that way. Past some relatively precise measurement of the hip joint's components, there is still a bit of the decision that rests on subjective matter. Bob-O

That independent audit is interesting, isn't it? I've mentioned before that I myself bred 2 dogs, littermates, both xrayed on the same day by 2 different vets in 2 different states. Both rejected a day apart - mild HD. Vets said - no way, re-xrayed them and each and got a good. That's a 3 level upgrade. I'd have understood it a lot better had they come back borderline or fair, but good? Duh......

Weberhaus, thank you for the information. Until your post, I thought that it was impossible to send an x-ray unless the information was imaged at the same moment as the film. This may come in handy some day. But, I would not try that with the S.V.! Thanks Again, Bob-O

Nope not true Bob. All excellents AND fairs HAVE to be unanimous. My dog got 2 excellents and 1 good and is rated good.

djc, What Bob said is correct and true :) You may want to have your vet inquire as to why your dog didnt receive ofa excellent if it received two excellents and one good. Taken from the OFA site http://www.offa.org/hipgrade.html Two radiologists reported excellent, one good—the final grade would be excellent One radiologist reported excellent, one good, one fair—the final grade would be good One radiologist reported fair, two radiologists reported mild—the final grade would be mild

hmm will check that out forsure. I wonder if it has changed in the past 5 years?

Bob-O, Are the results of that audit on the internet?

AUDIT???? I think in reality it was some PennHip supporters that resent a large number of previously graded xrays back to the OFA and "advertised" those that indicated grade changes. I believe common sense would indicate all were borderline some place. Different vets on different days----? If anyone wishes to argue excellents changed to failed or failed changed to awesome, PLEASE, leave me out! If you really think all OFA evaluators are cross eyed or crooked speak your mind and don't spend your money. It may, I say may, just be possible the OFA explanation is correct. PJDogs

AUDIT???? I think in reality it was some PennHip supporters that resent a large number of previously graded xrays back to the OFA and "advertised" those that indicated grade changes. I believe common sense would indicate all were borderline some place. Different vets on different days----? If anyone wishes to argue excellents changed to failed or failed changed to awesome, PLEASE, leave me out! If you really think all OFA evaluators are cross eyed or crooked speak your mind and don't spend your money. It may, I say may, just be possible the OFA explanation is correct. PJDogs