The Experts below are selected from a list of 15 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
P. Weinfurt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomedical Technology Assessment the 3q method
2010Co-Authors: P. WeinfurtAbstract:Abstract Evaluating Biomedical Technology poses a significant challenge in light of the complexity and rate of introduction in today's healthcare delivery system. Successful evaluation requires an integration of clinical medicine, science, finance, and market analysis. Little guidance, however, exists for those who must conduct comprehensive Technology evaluations. The 3Q Method meets these present day needs. The 3Q Method is organized around 3 key questions dealing with 1) clinical and scientific basis, 2) financial fit and 3) strategic and expertise fit. Both healthcare providers (e.g., hospitals) and medical industry providers can use the Method to evaluate medical devices, information systems and work processes from their own perspectives. The book describes the 3Q Method in detail and provides additional suggestions for optimal presentation and report preparation. Table of Contents: Introduction / Question #1: Is It Real? / Question #2: Can We Win? / Question #3: Is It Worth It? / 3Q Case Study Examp...
-
Biomedical Technology Assessment: The 3Q method
Synthesis Lectures on Biomedical Engineering, 2010Co-Authors: P. WeinfurtAbstract:Evaluating Biomedical Technology poses a significant challenge in light of the complexity and rate of introduction in today's healthcare delivery system. Successful evaluation requires an integration of clinical medicine, science, finance, and market analysis. Little guidance, however, exists for those who must conduct comprehensive Technology evaluations. The 3Q Method meets these present day needs. The 3Q Method is organized around 3 key questions dealing with 1) clinical and scientific basis, 2) financial fit and 3) strategic and expertise fit. Both healthcare providers (e.g., hospitals) and medical industry providers can use the Method to evaluate medical devices, information systems and work processes from their own perspectives. The book describes the 3Q Method in detail and provides additional suggestions for optimal presentation and report preparation.
-
Biomedical Technology Assessment: The 3Q Method
Biomedical Technology Assessment: The 3Q Method, 1Co-Authors: P. WeinfurtAbstract:Evaluating Biomedical Technology poses a significant challenge in light of the complexity and rate of introduction in today's healthcare delivery system. Successful evaluation requires an integration of clinical medicine, science, finance, and market analysis. Little guidance, however, exists for those who must conduct comprehensive Technology evaluations. The 3Q Method meets these present day needs. The 3Q Method is organized around 3 key questions dealing with 1) clinical and scientific basis, 2) financial fit and 3) strategic and expertise fit. Both healthcare providers (e.g., hospitals) and medical industry providers can use the Method to evaluate medical devices, information systems and work processes from their own perspectives. The book describes the 3Q Method in detail and provides additional suggestions for optimal presentation and report preparation. Table of Contents: Introduction / Question #1: Is It Real? / Question #2: Can We Win? / Question #3: Is It Worth It? / 3Q Case Study Example -- Pershing Medical Company / Appendix A: Health Care Technology Assessment Sample Class Syllabus / Appendix B: How do Hospitals and Clinicians Get Paid? / Appendix C: Technology Assessment PowerPoint Report Guidelines / Appendix D: Class Report Scenario Example / Appendix E: Four-Blocker Slide Templates for 3Q Reports
A.m. Hernandez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomedical Technology Assessment in health care centers: Systemic approach
Pan American Health Care Exchanges PAHCE, 2013Co-Authors: J.h. Garcia, A.m. HernandezAbstract:This paper presents a systemic approach to Technology Assessment in acquisition processes, describing four stages that are executed sequentially and generates as output quantitative indicators that facilitate the choice of either Technology. We present an application to the case of the acquisition of 164 units for clinical dental training at the School of Dentistry at Universidad de Antioquia demonstrating the utility of this approach in eliminating common shocks in the bidding process. © 2013 IEEE.
J.h. Garcia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomedical Technology Assessment in health care centers: Systemic approach
Pan American Health Care Exchanges PAHCE, 2013Co-Authors: J.h. Garcia, A.m. HernandezAbstract:This paper presents a systemic approach to Technology Assessment in acquisition processes, describing four stages that are executed sequentially and generates as output quantitative indicators that facilitate the choice of either Technology. We present an application to the case of the acquisition of 164 units for clinical dental training at the School of Dentistry at Universidad de Antioquia demonstrating the utility of this approach in eliminating common shocks in the bidding process. © 2013 IEEE.
Lubomír Martínek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Applications of Computational Intelligence in Biomedical Technology - Assessment of Mortality Risk for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery Using Regression Modeling
Studies in Computational Intelligence, 2015Co-Authors: Kateřina Janurová, Lubomír MartínekAbstract:Since its beginning in the 1990s, laparoscopic surgical technique has partly or event totally replaced the classical open technique in some branches of surgery. The surgical resection of colorectal cancer, which this paper is engaged in, is no exception. However, besides the well-known benefits of this technique, there are also less known disadvantages, which can significantly influence morbidity. In such a situation we can ask, which technique will guarantee longer survival time to the patient. The medical survival censored data of 866 patients were evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model in order to answer this question and to find the other parameters, which can influence the survival time of the patient. The surgical techniques were compared separately for patients with surgical resection of colon and for patients with surgical resection of rectum, because these two types of techniques are inherently different. Survival analysis performed by the Cox proportional hazards model led in both cases to the same conclusion, namely that there is no statistically significant difference in survival times between the two groups of patients operated by different surgical techniques.
Kateřina Janurová - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Applications of Computational Intelligence in Biomedical Technology - Assessment of Mortality Risk for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery Using Regression Modeling
Studies in Computational Intelligence, 2015Co-Authors: Kateřina Janurová, Lubomír MartínekAbstract:Since its beginning in the 1990s, laparoscopic surgical technique has partly or event totally replaced the classical open technique in some branches of surgery. The surgical resection of colorectal cancer, which this paper is engaged in, is no exception. However, besides the well-known benefits of this technique, there are also less known disadvantages, which can significantly influence morbidity. In such a situation we can ask, which technique will guarantee longer survival time to the patient. The medical survival censored data of 866 patients were evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model in order to answer this question and to find the other parameters, which can influence the survival time of the patient. The surgical techniques were compared separately for patients with surgical resection of colon and for patients with surgical resection of rectum, because these two types of techniques are inherently different. Survival analysis performed by the Cox proportional hazards model led in both cases to the same conclusion, namely that there is no statistically significant difference in survival times between the two groups of patients operated by different surgical techniques.