Evaluation of commercial PC-based DICOM image viewer

Conclusion

While each software product incorporated some excellent features, none included the full repertoire of needed functions. Depending on the specific clinical practice setting, absence of a function could constitute an inconvenience or preclude use of the software. For a referring physician inside the hospital, another software application affords access to the radiologist report, but remote access may not be available. When the primary practice involves plain radiography, the lack of sophisticated tools for managing complex cross-sectional images is a minor inconvenience, but for a neuroradiologist it is a major inconvenience. Comparisons with prior exams and measurement tools are often used to assess changes in patient status, but these tools are primitive stage of development. Although we concluded that our staff could use these products to evaluate patient exams, we will continue to search for a product that provides full support for clinical operations.

There is apparently no technological limitation precluding inclusion of these tools of PC viewer software, rather it seems to be the result of incomplete requirement definition, inadequate software development, or deliberate decisions to limit product development. Development activity seems to have shifted from PC-based viewers to Web-based products.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (560.6 KB).