Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Margulis AR, Sunshine JH (2000) Radiology at the turn of the millennium. Radiology 214:15–23
Foord K (2001) Year 2000: status of picture archiving and digital imaging in European hospitals. Eur Radiol 11:513–524
Arenson RL (2000) PACS: current status and cost-effectiveness. Eur Radiol 10(Suppl 3):S354–S356
Pilling J (1999) Problems facing the radiologist tendering for a hospital wide PACS system. Eur J Radiol 32:101–105
Osada M, Nishihara E (1999) Implementation and evaluation of workflow based on hospital information system/radiology information system/picture archiving and communications system. J Digit Imaging 12:103–105
Pollack T, Lemke HU, Heuser H, Niederlag W, Bruggenwerth G, Kaulfuss K (2000) Evaluation of PC-based radiologic diagnosis workstations. Rontgenpraxis 53:67–74
Erickson BJ (1997) What features to look for in a PACS workstation. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 19:65–66, 71
Erickson BJ (1999) Evaluating a picture archiving and communications system workstation. J Digit Imaging 12:223–225
Eversman WG, Pavlicek W, Zavalkovskiy B, Erickson BJ (2000) Performance and function of a desktop viewer at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. J Digit Imaging 13:147–152
Gale DR, Gale ME, Schwartz RK, Muse VV, Walker RE (2000) An automated PACS workstation interface: a timesaving enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:33–36
Erickson BJ, Ryan WJ, Gehring DG (2001) Functional requirements of a desktop clinical image display application. J Digit Imaging 14:149–152
Honea R, McCluggage CW, Parker B, O’Neall D, Shook KA (1998) Evaluation of commercial PC-based DICOM image viewer. J Digit Imaging 11:151–155
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boehm, T., Handgraetinger, O., Link, J. et al. Evaluation of radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution clients for a PACS project in hands-on workshops. Eur Radiol 14, 908–914 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2205-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2205-0