| Title |
Benefits of the DICOM Structured Report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, June 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-006-0631-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rita Noumeir |
| Abstract |
Recently, the digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) standard introduced rules for the encoding, transmission, and storage of the imaging diagnostic report. This medical document can be stored and communicated with the images in picture archiving and communication system (PACS). It is a structured document that contains text with links to other data such as images, waveforms, and spatial or temporal coordinates. Its structure, along with its wide use of coded information, enables the semantic understanding of the data that is essential for the Electronic Healthcare Record deployment. In this article, we present DICOM Structured Report (SR) and discuss its benefits. We show how SR enables efficient radiology workflow, improves patient care, optimizes reimbursement, and enhances the radiology ergonomic working conditions. As structured input significantly alters the interpretation process, understanding all its benefits is necessary to support the change. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 21% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 30% |
| Computer Science | 25 | 27% |
| Engineering | 9 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,405,018
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#269
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,998
of 64,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 64,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.