Evaluation of commercial PC-based DICOM image viewer

Honea, Rosemary; McCluggage, Charles W.; Parker, Bruce R.; O’Neall, Diane; Shook, Keith A.

doi:10.1007/bf03168289

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding 3D viewing, OsiriX Lite and MicroView fulfill the most criteria of standalone (both 5 criteria), Xero Conquest, DCM4CHEE or Orthanc PACS for WADO required, 7 comprehensive documentation in wiki, 8 Forum offline, 9 Displays only first slice of test data, 10 Using startup macro feature, 11 Saves annotations in other formats, but not DICOM, 12 Requires Oviyam, 13 Designated, but not working, 14 Annotated objects could not be reopened, 15 Requires DCM4CHEE PACS, 16 Runs only with Google Chrome, Images cannot be stored, 34 Seems to be not working correctly in demo (3 criteria) of web-based, and ImageJ as well as MIPAV (both 5 criteria) of platform-independent viewers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1998, Honea et al have published an investigation of commercial personal computer (PC)-based DICOM viewers for clinical review and home teleradiology stations [7]. The authors identified important functionality, such as multiple windowing levels, distance and angle measurements, as well as storage of annotations and built up a catalog of criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Survey of DICOM Viewer Software to Integrate Clinical Research and Medical Imaging

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) protocol is the leading standard for image data management in healthcare. Imaging biomarkers and image-based surrogate endpoints in clinical trials and medical registries require DICOM viewer software with advanced functionality for visualization and interfaces for integration. In this paper, a comprehensive evaluation of 28 DICOM viewers is performed. The evaluation criteria are obtained from application scenarios in clinical research rather than patient care. They include (i) platform, (ii) interface, (iii) support, (iv) twodimensional (2D), and (v) three-dimensional (3D) viewing. On the average, 4.48 and 1.43 of overall 8 2D and 5 3D image viewing criteria are satisfied, respectively. Suitable DICOM interfaces for central viewing in hospitals are provided by GingkoCADx, MIPAV, and OsiriX Lite. The viewers ImageJ, MicroView, MIPAV, and OsiriX Lite offer all included 3D-rendering features for advanced viewing. Interfaces needed for decentral viewing in web-based systems are offered by Oviyam, Weasis, and Xero. Focusing on open source components, MIPAV is the best candidate for 3D imaging as well as DICOM communication. Weasis is superior for workflow optimization in clinical trials. Our evaluation shows that advanced visualization and suitable interfaces can also be found in the open source field and not only in commercial products.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of DICOM Viewer Software to Integrate Clinical Research and Medical Imaging

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PACS is characterized by rapid developments and, therefore, some of the vendors may already have made remarkable changes in their software. Despite the great importance of user interfaces for acceptance of a PACS, there are only a few publications dealing with the subject of assessment of functional properties of radiological workstations and web-browserbased image distribution software clients [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Hardware features were not directly rated in the present workshop.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rating was performed by only three radiologists, which seems to be a significant drawback of their study. Honea et al [12] evaluated the technical abilities of six web-browser-based image distribution software clients. A board of radiologists, tech-912…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution clients for a PACS project in hands-on workshops

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Despite the large amount of research that has been pursued in the visualization domain, current medical imaging systems still suffer from poor user interface designs [3]. Many existing PACS (Picture Archival and Communication System) use traditional zooming and scrolling to display medical images while others use thumbnails to select images for further magnification [1].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visualizing sequential data

Kuederle

2000

CHI '00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationships between images are often of a sequential nature. Temporal sequences may include keyframes in an animation or frequently recorded satellite pictures. An example for spatial sequences is Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) as they show successive slices of a volume. When interacting with these images, the user may wish to see detailed information without losing the context. Detail-in-context techniques provide methods to display parts of the data in full detail without sacrificing contextual information. Studies have shown that it is important to match the user's mental model as well as the underlying structure of the data when designing a detailin-context algorithm. This paper describes a new algorithm to visualize sequential data and an application of this technique to the display of MR images.

show abstract

Evaluation of commercial PC-based DICOM image viewer

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

A Survey of DICOM Viewer Software to Integrate Clinical Research and Medical Imaging

A Survey of DICOM Viewer Software to Integrate Clinical Research and Medical Imaging

Evaluation of radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution clients for a PACS project in hands-on workshops

Visualizing sequential data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About