ArticleJournal of digital imaging2001
A web implementation: the good and the not-so-good.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
E-commerce, e-mail, e-greeting, e-this, and e-that everywhere you turn there is a new "e" word for an internet or Web application. We, at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, have been "e-nlightened" and will discuss in this report the implementation of a web-based radiology information system (RIS) in our radiology division or "e-radiology" division. The application, IDXRad Version 10.0 from IDX Corp, Burlington, VT, is in use at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and has both intranet (for use in Radiology) and internet (referring physician viewing) modules. We will concentrate on the features of using a web browser for the application's front-end, including easy prototyping for screen review, easier mock-ups of demonstrations by vendors and developers, and easier training as more people become web-addicted. Project communication can be facilitated with an internal project web page, and use of the web browser can accommodate quicker turnaround of software upgrades as the software code is centrally located. Compared with other technologies, including client/server, there is a smaller roll out cost when using a standard web browser. However, the new technology requires a change and changes are never implemented without challenges. A seasoned technologist using a legacy system can enter data quicker using function keys than using a graphical user interface and pointing and clicking through a series of pop-up windows. Also, effective use of a web browser depends on intuitive design for it to be easily implemented and accepted by the user. Some software packages will not work on both of the popular web browsers and then are tailored to specific release levels. As computer-based patient records become a standard, patient confidentiality must be enforced. The technical design and application security features that support the web-based software package will be discussed. Also web technologies have their own implementation issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.