| Title |
Considerations for Exchanging and Sharing Medical Images for Improved Collaboration and Patient Care: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-016-9885-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Vreeland, Kenneth R. Persons, Henri (Rik) Primo, Matthew Bishop, Kimberley M. Garriott, Matthew K. Doyle, Elliott Silver, Danielle M. Brown, Chris Bashall |
| Abstract |
The need for providers and patients to exchange and share imaging has never been more apparent, yet many organizations are only now, as a part of a larger enterprise imaging initiative, taking steps to streamline an important process that has historically been facilitated with the use of CDs or insecure methods of communication. This paper will provide an introduction to concepts and common-use cases for image exchange, outline challenges that have hindered adoption to date, and describe standards for image exchange that show increasing promise of being adopted by vendors and providers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 9 | 69% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 31% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 23% |
| Unknown | 30 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 22 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 35 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,557,337
of 24,287,697 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#71
of 1,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,712
of 358,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,697 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,109 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 358,156 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.