Technology Assessment

  • M. F. McKneally
  • A. F. Pierre
  • H. Troidl


Technology is the domain of knowledge that includes devices, instruments, the industrial arts, and engineering. The term is sometimes expanded to include the organization of resources or systems by which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.


Technology Assessment Failure Analysis Consensus Conference Ethic Consultation Surgical Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Troidl H. Endoscopic surgery—A fascinating idea requires responsibility in evaluation and handling. In: Szabo Z, Kerstein MD, Lewis JE, eds. Surgical Technology International III. International Devel opments in Surgery and Surgical Research. San Francisco: Universal Medical, 1994, pp. 111–117Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Postman, N. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf, 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lorenz, K. “Die Rückselte des Spiegels” Versuch einer Naturgeschichte menschlichen Erkennens. Zürich: Piper-Verlag, 1973Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    White RA, Cavaye DM. Endovascular surgery: history, current status and future perspective. Int Angiol 1993;12(3):197–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mosteller F, Frazier HS. Evaluating medical technologies. In: HS Frazier, F Mosteller, eds. Medicine Worth Paying For: Assessing Medical Innovations. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1995, p. 9–35Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jennett B. High Technology Medicine—Benefits and Burdens. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1986Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singer PA, Siegler M, Lantos JD, Emond JC, Whitington PF, Thistlethwaite JR, Broelsch CE. The ethical assessment of innovative therapies: liver transplantation using living donors. Theor Med 1990;11:87–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singer PA, Siegler M, Whitington PF, Lantos JD, Emond JC, Thistlethwaite JR, Broelsch CE. Ethics of liver transplantation with living donors. New Engl J Med 1989;321(9):620–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Kum CK, Eypasch E, Miserez M, Paul A. The E.A.E.S. consensus development conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus Statements— September 1994. Surg Endosc 1995;9:550–563PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Troidl H, Backer B, Langer B, Winkler-Wilfurth A. Fehleranalyse—Evaluierung und Verhütung Von Komplikationen; ihre juristische Implikation. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl (Kongreßbericht) 1993, p. 59–72Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Kitz RJ. An analysis of major errors and equipment failures in anesthesis management: considerations for prevention and detection. Anesthesiology. 1984;60:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKneally MF. Can surgical innovation survive? Bull Am Coll Surg 1996;81(4):8–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Battista RN. Innovation and diffusion of healthrelated technologies—a conceptual framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:227–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Battista RN, Banta HD, Jonnson E, Hodge M, Gelband H. Lessons from the eight countries. Health Policy 1994;30:397–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. F. McKneally
  • A. F. Pierre
  • H. Troidl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations