NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R, et al. EOS 2D/3D X-ray Imaging System: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (UK); 2012 Mar. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.14.)

Cover of EOS 2D/3D X-ray Imaging System: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation

EOS 2D/3D X-ray Imaging System: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation.

Show details

Appendix 4Table of excluded studies with rationale: systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS

Study detailsReason for exclusionFurther detail
ClinicalTrials​.gov: NCT0092643264Not controlled studyOngoing study – currently recruiting participants
ClinicalTrials​.gov: NCT0108703465Not conventional X-ray controlOngoing study – currently recruiting participants
Biospace Med66Not controlled studyPowerPoint slides on number of EOS examinations undertaken
Food and Drug Administration (2007)67Not controlled studyFDA Marketing Authorisation – not a study
Biospace Med68Not controlled studyOverview of EOS – not a study
Alison (2009)69Not controlled studyPresentation on examination time for EOS
Assi (2007)70Not conventional X-ray controlFeasibility study for 3D X-ray reconstruction in patients with cerebral palsy
Aubin (1997)71Not EOSNot EOS
Azmy (2010)72Not orthopaedic patientsCadaver specimens. Assessing 3D reconstruction
Barthe (2004)73Not orthopaedic patientsRats
Baru (1998)74Not EOSNot EOS
Benameur (2005)75Not EOSNot EOS
Benameur (2005)76Not conventional X-ray controlAssessment of 3D modelling, rather than EOS
Benameur (2001)77Not conventional X-ray controlAssessment of 3D modelling, rather than EOS
Benameur (2003)78Not conventional X-ray controlAssessment of 3D modelling, rather than EOS
Bertrand (2005)79Not orthopaedic patientsAsymptomatic volunteers. Assessing intra- and interobserver agreement for 3D reconstruction of rib cage
Bertrand (2008)80Not orthopaedic patientsDuplicate report of the above study
Billuart (2008)81Not orthopaedic patientsCadaveric specimens. Not a controlled study
Breton (2010)82Not orthopaedic patientsDry femurs. Assessing accuracy of femur length measurement, interobserver agreement and radiation dose
Chaibi (2010)83Not conventional X-ray controlHealthy volunteers and cadavers. Comparing 3D EOS models with CT
Chaibi (2010)84Not conventional X-ray controlFrench PhD thesis – above study is part of this
Charpak (2005)85Not controlled studyDiscussion – not a study
Chateil (2005)86Not controlled studyDiscussion – not a study
Cheriet (2007)87Not EOSNot EOS
Comité d'Évaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques (CEDIT) (1996)88Not controlled studyCEDIT recommendations – not a study
Comité d'Évaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques (CEDIT) (2007)45Not controlled studyCEDIT recommendations – not a study
Cresson (2010)89Not orthopaedic patientsAssessment of 3D reconstruction (EOS vs CT). Dry bones – six femurs
Cresson (2009)90Not conventional X-ray controlAssessment of 3D reconstruction using CT as control
de la Simone (2010)91Not controlled studyOverview of EOS – not a study
Deschênes92Not controlled studyPowerPoint slides discussing studies we had already identified
Deschênes (2009)93Duplicate publication (abstract for included study)Duplicate publication
Deschênes (2003)94Not conventional X-ray controlAssessment of 3D reconstruction. Not a controlled study
Despres (2005)95Not conventional X-ray controlNot a controlled study
Douglas (2008)96Not EOSNot EOS
Douglas (2004)97Not EOSNot EOS
Dubousset98Not conventional X-ray controlCase study
Dubousset (2005)99Not controlled studyOverview discussing patients from studies we had already identified
Dubousset (2005)100Not controlled studyDuplicate report of above study
Dubousset (2008)101Not controlled studyDescription of the technology – not a study
Dubousset (2010)102Not controlled studyOverview – discusses patients from studies we had already identified
Dubousset (2007)103Not controlled studyDescription of the technology
Dumas (2008)104Not EOSNot EOS
Dumas (2004)105Not orthopaedic patientsDried vertebrae
Dumas (2003)106Not EOSNot EOS
Dumas (2002)107Not conventional X-ray controlAssessing 3D reconstruction – not clear if EOS
Dumas (2003)108Not conventional X-ray controlAssessing 3D reconstruction – not clear if EOS
Dumas (2005)109Not orthopaedic patientsHealthy volunteers. Assessment of 3D reconstruction using EOS, rather than assessment of EOS
Gangnet (2006)110Not orthopaedic patientsNot EOS. Assessing 3D reconstruction using healthy volunteers
Gangnet (2003)111Not EOSNot EOS
Gille (2007)112Not EOSNot EOS
Glard (2008)113Not EOSNot EOS
Glard (2009)114Not EOSNot EOS
Guenoun (2010)115Not conventional X-ray controlPowerPoint slides. Describes study of EOS vs pangonogram in preoperative assessment of total hip arthroplasty
Hascall (2002)116Not EOSNot EOS
Humbert (2008)117Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in three sets of bones from cadavers
Humbert (2009)118Not conventional X-ray controlControlled part of the study used CT scan
Humbert (2008)119Not conventional X-ray controlControlled part of the study used CT scan
Illes (2010)120Not controlled studyCase study
Illes (2010)121Not conventional X-ray controlBefore and after X-rays, no control
Illes (2011)122Not conventional X-ray controlBefore and after X-rays, no control. Case study
Janssen (2009)123Not orthopaedic patientsHealthy volunteers. No control
Jolivet (2010)124Not conventional X-ray controlCT control. Healthy volunteers
Journe (2010)125Not orthopaedic patientsDry bones. CT control
Kadoury (2008)126Not EOSNot EOS
Kadoury (2009)127Not EOSNot EOS
Kalifa (1996)128Not controlled studyEditorial – not a study
Lafage (2002)129Not EOSNot EOS
Laporte (2004)130Not EOSNot EOS
Laporte (2002)131Not EOSNot EOS
Laville (2009)132Not orthopaedic patientsCadavers. No control
Lazennec133Not conventional X-ray controlCT control. Case study
Le Bras (2003)134Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in dry bones
Le Bras (2004)135Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in dry bones. Includes most of same patients as above
Le Bras (2002)136Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in dry bones
Le Bras (2003)137Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in dry bones
Mitton (2007)1Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in dry bones
Mitton (2006)138Not orthopaedic patientsEOS vs CT in dry bones
Mitton (2000)139Not EOSNot EOS
Mitulescu (2002)140Not EOSNot EOS
NICE2Not controlled studyInformation from manufacturer – not a study
Ngoc Hoan (1979)141Not EOSNot EOS
Node-Langlois (2003)142Not EOSNot EOS
Novosad (2002)143Not EOSNot EOS
Obeid144Not conventional X-ray controlCase study
Ohl (2010)145Not orthopaedic patientsHealthy volunteers. No control
Pomero (2003)146Not conventional X-ray controlNot EOS. Dry bones. No control
Pomero (2004)147Not conventional X-ray controlNot sure if EOS. CT control
Rillardon (2005)148Not conventional X-ray controlEOS vs MRI on discs (not live patients)
Rousseau (2007)149Not orthopaedic patientsHealthy volunteers. No control
Sabourin (2010)150Not conventional X-ray controlEOS vs CT
Sandoz (2008)151Not orthopaedic patientsHealthy volunteers. No control
Sapin De Brosses (2010)152Not orthopaedic patientsDry bones. Not a controlled study. Assessing bone mineral density
Sapin (2008)153Not conventional X-ray controlEuropean spine phantom. Assessing bone mineral density
Sapin (2007)154Not orthopaedic patientsEuropean spine phantom. Assessing bone mineral density
Sato (2004)155Not EOSNot EOS
Sauli (1994)156Not controlled studyOverview – not a study
Schlatterer (2009)157Not conventional X-ray controlHealthy volunteers + two knee surgery patients. Not a controlled study
Sebag158Not controlled studyPowerPoint slides on examination time
Situ (2009)159Not EOSNot EOS
Steffen (2008)160Not conventional X-ray controlCase study. CT control
Steffen (2010)161Not conventional X-ray controlControl was asymptomatic patients
Sudhoff (2007)162Not conventional X-ray controlAssessment of knee attachment systems. No control
Sushkov (2008)163Not EOSNot EOS
Vital (2008)164Not controlled studyOverview – not a study
Wahrburg (2000)165Not EOSNot EOS
Zheng (2006)166Not orthopaedic patientsDry bones. Not clear if EOS
Zheng (2008)167Not orthopaedic patientsDry bones. Assessment of 3D reconstruction technique, not clear if EOS. Not standard X-ray control

MRI, magnetic reasonance imaging.

© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK97740
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.2M)
  • Disable Glossary Links

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...