Table 1.
Results of the tilt table construction optimisation.
| Criterion | Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| Aesthetics | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Areas dangerous to patient | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Areas dangerous to staff | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Complexity | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Cost | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Degree of precision | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| Dimensions | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Ease of cleaning | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Ease of leading cables | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Easy to build | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Ergonomics | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Rigidity, durability | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Threat in case of failure | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Use of commercial elements | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Variable rotation axis | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Weight | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Points total | 51 | 50 | 48 | 41 | 43 | 60 |
Rating: 1 – poor, 2 – acceptable, 3 – good, 4 – very good, 5 – excellent.