ArticleActa informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH2017
An Evaluation Protocol for Picture Archiving and Communication System: a Systematic Review.
Article in Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Pilot deployment of a cloud-based universal medical image repository in a large public health system: A protocol study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Review
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
introductionPicture archiving and communication system (PACS) serves to store, transmit, communicate and manage medical images. A logical evaluation protocol assists to determine whether the system is technically, structurally and operationally fit. The purpose of this systematic review was to propose a logical evaluation protocol for PACS, particularly useful for new hospitals and other healthcare institutions in developing countries. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We systematically reviewed 25 out of 267 full-length articles, published between 2000 and 2017, retrieved from four sources: Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar. The extracted data were tabulated and reviewed successively by three independent panels of experts that oversaw the design of this study and the process by which the PACS evaluation protocol was systematically developed.
resultsThe outcome data were ranked by expert panels and analyzed statistically, with the reliability established at 0.82 based on the Pearson's correlation coefficient. The essential components and the best options to establish an optimal PACS were organized under nine main sections:
conclusionsThis systematic review presents an objective protocol that is an ideal tool for the evaluation of new or existing PACS at healthcare institutions, particularly in developing countries. Despite the significant advantages, the protocol may face minor limitations, largely due to lack of appropriate technical resources in various clinical settings and the host countries.
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.