Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Biomedical Technology”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources

On the contribution of biomedical engineering and technology to the understanding and the management of arterial hypertension.

There are several reasons why arterial blood pressure, i.e. the pressure within the large arterial vessels, is out of the physical parameters of the human body, one of the most frequently measured. Firstly, arterial blood pressure is a physiologically meaningful parameter, since it represents the driving pressure generated by the heart which maintains blood perfusion in the periphery. Secondly, it is a clinically important parameter: a decline of arterial blood pressure (e.g. in shock) may represent a life-threatening emergency which requires prompt recognition and correction; elevated blood pressure (hypertension) on the other hand is a very common condition, which bears a high risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and can be controlled with appropriate pharmacological means. Thirdly, but not lastly, arterial blood pressure is easily measurable with a fair degree of accuracy by the standard manual sphygmomanometric method and, more recently, by non-invasive automatic techniques. This paper discusses some of the aspects related to arterial blood pressure measurement, in which, in the author's opinion, medical engineering and technology are expected to provide useful advancements. Two major areas will be considered. The first regards the methodologies for arterial blood pressure assessment; the second the identification and acquisition of information additional to blood pressure which would be helpful for a better understanding of blood pressure measurements and/or of risk profiling. For the purpose of this brief paper, we shall mainly use examples and reasonings from our own experience.

Biomedical Engineering↗

1997 survey of salaries & responsibilities for hospital biomedical clinical engineering & technology personnel.

The Journal of Clinical Engineering conducted its twelfth annual survey of the salaries paid to biomedical/clinical engineering and technology personnel in U.S. hospitals. This paper reports the salary and work responsibility data obtained from 276 professionals in relationship to: region of the U.S.; teaching versus nonteaching facilities; years of experience; education; certification; union membership; and gender. Data are included on wage increases and job responsibilities as of 12/31/96, and are compared with data as of 12/31/95. The average BMET I has 2.9 years of experience and earns $26,126 +/- $5,800 (nationwide mean +/- standard deviation). The average BMET II has 8.29 years of experience and ears $34,687 +/- $6,300. The average BMET III has 12.7 years of experience and earns $40,960 +/- $6,900. The average BMET Specialist has 16.7 years of experience and earns $46,131 +/- $9,100. The average BMET Supervisor has 15.0 years of experience and ears $44,248 +/- 47,700. The average Clinical Engineer has 13.6 years of experience and earns $44,839 +/- $10,000. CE Supervisors have an average of 21.6 years of experience and an average salary of $59,789 +/- $13,100. The overall group or department Director or Manager has 17.5 years of experience and earns $55,325 +/- $16,200 on average.

Age Factors↗

International diffusion of new health technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine and explain the differential international diffusion of six health innovations. METHODS: A retrospective diffusion study was undertaken of sildenafil, cyclooxygenase-II (COX II) inhibitors, beta interferon, verteporfin, deep brain stimulators, and drug-eluting coronary stents in ten countries-Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. We plotted diffusion curves of daily defined doses per quarter, vials or implants per million population, and examined the association between diffusion and five key variables. RESULTS: Canada, Switzerland, and Sweden are generally high users of new technologies; Spain, Denmark, and particularly the United Kingdom are low users. Almost all countries experienced rapid adoption of sildenafil with diffusion to a similar level; there was variable adoption and diffusion of COX II inhibitors, verteporfin, and interferon beta; drug-eluting stents penetrated the market in a similar way in all but one country; and two countries had very different adoption patterns for deep brain stimulators. Above average health spending and the presence of health technology assessment (HTA) or other guidance reports are consistently associated with increased diffusion. Early warning activity and a national coverage decision being taken are more likely to be associated with a reduced diffusion. CONCLUSIONS: The significant differences in diffusion between different countries are not consistent with a neat evidence-based world. The tools available to policy makers to control diffusion (early warning systems, HTA, and a fourth hurdle) play some part in influencing diffusion but need close scrutiny of how successfully they operate.

Australia↗