Purpose of Manitoba Association of Medical Radiation Technologists

Posted on Updated on

•promote and encourage the science and art of medical radiation technology and to consider and discuss all subjects affecting it;

•promote, assist, guide, encourage and form a central association for medical radiation technologists throughout the Province of Manitoba;

•facilitate the exchange of information and ideas on matters affecting the science, art and practice of medical radiation technology and allied subjects;

•print, publish, sell, lend or distribute the proceedings or reports of the MAMRT or any papers, communications, works or treatises on medical radiation technology or its applications or subjects connected to the science, art and practice of medical radiation technology and allied subjects;

•promote and provide for the carrying out of research and experimental work in connection with medical radiation technology and allied subjects and to make, institute and establish grants, rewards or other benefactors in connection therewith;

•establish and maintain archives to promote, organize, and exhibit items connected with the science, art and practice of medical radiation technology.

•establish, undertake, superintend, administer, and contribute to any charitable and benevolent fund in connection with or for the benefit of persons engaged in the science and practice of medical radiation technology or allied subjects and their dependents;

•associate, affiliate and federate with any Association, society or organization, incorporated or unincorporated, with objectives the same as or similar to the objectives of the MAMRT;

•be affiliated with the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists (CAMRT) and this provision is unalterable.


3 thoughts on “Purpose of Manitoba Association of Medical Radiation Technologists

    Denazaide said:
    July 28, 2012 at 7:53 am

    thanks for such a great post and the review, i am totally impressed!

    Replica said:
    July 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we communicate?

    Medical Radiology News said:
    July 18, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Colonoscopy, CT colonography or none of the above

    Although a study that appeared in Lancet Oncology comparing colonoscopy and CT colonography concluded that both techniques could be acceptable for population-based screening for colorectal cancer, it may be too soon to confirm the true benefit of either approach, according to a commentary published in the July 17 edition of the American College of Physicians (ACP) Journal Club.

    “Compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy or fecal blood testing, colonoscopy is more expensive and hazardous (e.g., need for bowel preparation and sedation); in addition, the ability of colonoscopy to prevent proximal colon cancer is uncertain,” wrote Ronald L. Koretz, MD, of Olive View—UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar, Calif. “CT colonography is expensive, exposes [the patient] to radiation, requires colonoscopic follow-up for intestinal lesions, and has unknown potential for harm or benefit when identifying noncolonic incidental abnormalities.”

    Koretz argued that a colon cancer screening test should prevent mortality and morbidity at an affordable cost. The study from Stoop et al (Lancet Oncol 2012;13:55-64) that compared colonoscopy and CT colonography did not feature a no-screening control group, and doesn’t provide any insight into the cost-effectiveness of either test, according to Koretz. Only guaiac-based fecal testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy have high-grade evidence comparing the screening method to a no-screening control.

    “Given the economic limitations in health care, we should be wary of accepting either colonoscopy or CT colonography without definitive evidence of benefit compared with doing nothing,” wrote Koretz.

    Stoop and colleagues found that participation rates for colorectal cancer screening were higher when patients were invited to undergo CT colonography rather than colonoscopy. Colonoscopy, however, had a higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia per participant, which made the overall diagnostic yield per invitee similar between the two techniques.

    The ACP Journal Club is a monthly feature of Annals of Internal Medicine that summarizes new evidence for internal medicine from more than 130 clinical journals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s