These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution clients for a PACS project in hands-on workshops.
    Author: Boehm T, Handgraetinger O, Link J, Ploner R, Voellmy DR, Marincek B, Wildermuth S.
    Journal: Eur Radiol; 2004 May; 14(5):908-14. PubMed ID: 14760506.
    Abstract:
    The methodology and outcome of a hands-on workshop for the evaluation of PACS (picture archiving and communication system) software for a multihospital PACS project are described. The following radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution software clients were evaluated as part of a multistep evaluation of PACS vendors in March 2001: Impax DS 3000 V 4.1/Impax Web1000 (Agfa-Gevaert, Mortsel, Belgium); PathSpeed V 8.0/PathSpeed Web (GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis., USA); ID Report/ID Web (Image Devices, Idstein, Germany); EasyVision DX/EasyWeb (Philips Medical Systems, Eindhoven, Netherlands); and MagicView 1000 VB33a/MagicWeb (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany). A set of anonymized DICOM test data was provided to enable direct image comparison. Radiologists ( n=44) evaluated the radiological workstations and nonradiologists ( n=53) evaluated the image distribution software clients using different questionnaires. One vendor was not able to import the provided DICOM data set. Another vendor had problems in displaying imported cross-sectional studies in the correct stack order. Three vendors (Agfa-Gevaert, GE, Philips) presented server-client solutions with web access. Two (Siemens, Image Devices) presented stand-alone solutions. The highest scores in the class of radiological workstations were achieved by ID Report from Image Devices ( p<0.005). In the class of image distribution clients, the differences were statistically not significant. Questionnaire-based evaluation was shown to be useful for guaranteeing systematic assessment. The workshop was a great success in raising interest in the PACS project in a large group of future clinical users. The methodology used in the present study may be useful for other hospitals evaluating PACS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]