| Title |
The Current State and Path Forward For Enterprise Image Viewing: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-016-9887-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J. Roth, Louis M. Lannum, Donald K. Dennison, Alexander J. Towbin |
| Abstract |
Clinical specialties have widely varied needs for diagnostic image interpretation, and clinical image and video image consumption. Enterprise viewers are being deployed as part of electronic health record implementations to present the broad spectrum of clinical imaging and multimedia content created in routine medical practice today. This white paper will describe the enterprise viewer use cases, drivers of recent growth, technical considerations, functionality differences between enterprise and specialty viewers, and likely future states. This white paper is aimed at CMIOs and CIOs interested in optimizing the image-enablement of their electronic health record or those who may be struggling with the many clinical image viewers their enterprises may employ today. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 55% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 18% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,356,019
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#19
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,806
of 365,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.