PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8913780

XiTec XiScan 1000 mini C-arm unit.

Abstract

Mini C-arm units are small, mobile fluoroscopic imaging systems-essentially miniaturized versions of mobile C-arm units. They are used most often by hand and foot surgeons to image the extremities (e.g., fingers, hand, foot). In this Evaluation, we tested the XiScan 1000 mini C-arm unit, equipped with a 6.7 cm (2.6 in) diameter image intensifier, manufactured by XiTec, Inc. (We also partially tested and rated a version of this unit with a 10 cm [4 in] image intensifier.) This study is an update of our previous mini C-arm unit Evaluation covering the FluoroScan, published in Health Devices 24(2), February 1995. Except where noted, we tested the new unit against the same criteria and using the same test methods as described in the original study. For the sake of brevity, we have not repeated our criteria or test methods in this issue. Readers wishing that information should refer to the original Evaluation or contact ECRI. In addition, the original Evaluation includes a Clinical and Technical Overview detailing many of the technical features and issues touched on below. We also draw readers' attention to other material we have published on C-arms: our Evaluation of mobile C-arms in August 1990 (19[8]), our Single Product Evaluation of the IMS Exposcop Plus mobile C-arm in March 1993 (22[3]), and our Update of the FluoroScan Evaluation in December 1995 (24[12]). Readers are cautioned not to base purchasing and use decisions on our rating alone, but on a thorough understanding of our conclusions and the issues surrounding mini C-arm units, which can be gained by reading this study and the February 1995 Evaluation in their entirety. For additional perspectives on fluoroscopy and the operation of C-arm units, refer to our earlier Evaluations of conventional C-arm units.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

1996. XiTec XiScan 1000 mini C-arm unit.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8913780/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Complex adaptive systems: a response to Luchins.

Luchins (2003, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 31(2), 183-186) distinguishes the mutual strengths and shortcomings of qualitative and quantitative approaches as applied to the complexities of evaluation psychiatric hospital functioning in particular, and behavioral healthcare practice in general. This brief response offers an examination of the complex interplay of factors within non-linear models in a conceptualization of complex adaptive systems for understanding causal factors in mental health administration as well as calling into question the myth of the relationship between measurement and hence control and understanding and prediction.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

In search of a familial cancer risk assessment tool.

Approximately one in three individuals will be affected by cancer in their lifetime in the United States, and some are at elevated risk because of family history. Although assessment of family history of cancer and cancer risk is the standard of care, the current health-care system appears unable to meet this need. Because individuals are increasingly using the Internet, web-based cancer risk assessment tools (CRATs) may provide a way to meet this need. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the types of familial CRATs available on the Internet and their nature. The current review evaluated five CRATs identified through an Internet search based on (i) their ability to identify those at the highest risk of cancer (i.e. those with hereditary cancer syndromes), (ii) their strengths and limitations based on criteria adapted from Rich and colleagues (2004, 2005), (iii) their readability based on four readability calculations, and (iv) their quality based on criteria from Health on the Net. The general limitations of CRATs as a whole were also delineated, including concerns about availability to those who are poor and underserved and those who have lower levels of literacy. Recommendations for future tools include assessing risk for a greater number of diseases, using theoretically driven approaches to increase the likelihood that individuals will engage in appropriate health behaviors, and making a greater effort to reach diverse populations.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research.

The overall aim of this study was to contribute to the development of metasynthesis through an analysis of the challenges involved. The study grew out of the critique of qualitative metaresearch raised by current developers of metamethodologies. Different views on the application of methodologies have emerged in the literature, contributing to confusion and ambiguity concerning the challenging questions of what, why, how, and who in metasynthesis research, which might increase the risk of misunderstanding. The roots of metasynthesis research are seen as multifaceted and influencing the development of the methods in different directions. The primary worth of metasynthesis is theoretical and/or methodological development (synthesis) combined with the potential for reflection: going beyond and behind the studies (meta). Metasynthesis research has also the potential to raise questions of research collaboration, culture, and language.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗