| Title |
PACS Administrators’ and Radiologists’ Perspective on the Importance of Features for PACS Selection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-014-9682-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vivek Joshi, Vamsi R. Narra, Kailash Joshi, Kyootai Lee, David Melson |
| Abstract |
Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) play a critical role in radiology. This paper presents the criteria important to PACS administrators for selecting a PACS. A set of criteria are identified and organized into an integrative hierarchical framework. Survey responses from 48 administrators are used to identify the relative weights of these criteria through an analytical hierarchy process. The five main dimensions for PACS selection in order of importance are system continuity and functionality, system performance and architecture, user interface for workflow management, user interface for image manipulation, and display quality. Among the subdimensions, the highest weights were assessed for security, backup, and continuity; tools for continuous performance monitoring; support for multispecialty images; and voice recognition/transcription. PACS administrators' preferences were generally in line with that of previously reported results for radiologists. Both groups assigned the highest priority to ensuring business continuity and preventing loss of data through features such as security, backup, downtime prevention, and tools for continuous PACS performance monitoring. PACS administrators' next high priorities were support for multispecialty images, image retrieval speeds from short-term and long-term storage, real-time monitoring, and architectural issues of compatibility and integration with other products. Thus, next to ensuring business continuity, administrators' focus was on issues that impact their ability to deliver services and support. On the other hand, radiologists gave high priorities to voice recognition, transcription, and reporting; structured reporting; and convenience and responsiveness in manipulation of images. Thus, radiologists' focus appears to be on issues that may impact their productivity, effort, and accuracy. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 30% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,616,536
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#110
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,277
of 226,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 226,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.