Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30859340›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2020

Free DICOM-Viewers for Veterinary Medicine : Survey and Comparison of Functionality and User-Friendliness of Medical Imaging PACS-DICOM-Viewer Freeware for Specific Use in Veterinary Medicine Practices.

Andreas Brühschwein, Julius Klever, Anne-Sophie Hoffmann, Denise Huber, Elisabeth Kaufmann, Sven Reese, Andrea Meyer-Lindenberg

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Web-Based DICOM Viewers: A Survey and a Performance Classification.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Virtual bronchoscopy using Horos.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andreas BrühschweinClinic of Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Veterinärstrasse 13, 80539, Munich, Germany. bruehschwein@lmu.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7833-8031
Julius KleverClinic of Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Veterinärstrasse 13, 80539, Munich, Germany.
Anne-Sophie HoffmannClinic of Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Veterinärstrasse 13, 80539, Munich, Germany.
Denise HuberClinic of Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Veterinärstrasse 13, 80539, Munich, Germany.
Elisabeth KaufmannClinic of Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Veterinärstrasse 13, 80539, Munich, Germany.
Sven ReeseInstitute of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andrea Meyer-LindenbergClinic of Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Faculty, LMU Munich, Veterinärstrasse 13, 80539, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing prevalence of digital diagnostic imaging in veterinary medicine with a progressive need to use medical imaging software. As Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)-viewers for veterinary use do not require medical device approval in many countries, freeware viewers might be a practical alternative. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate free DICOM-viewer software for veterinary purposes. The functionality and user-friendliness of various DICOM-viewers from the internet were analyzed and compared. Inclusion criteria for the evaluation were free availability, PACS (picture archiving and communication system)-connectivity, and stand-alone and client-based software. Based on this, eight viewers were found: Ginkgo CADx, Horos, K-PACS, MAYAM, MITO, OsiriX Lite, RadiAnt, Synedra personal. In these DICOM-viewers, 14 core tools were tested and rated on a score from 1 to 10 by multiple observers with different levels of training, using studies of four imaging modalities. Criteria were functionality and user-friendliness. For each viewer, the total number of a predefined set of 47 important tools was counted. The ranking based on functionality and user-friendliness of 14 core tools (mean score in brackets) was as follows: 1. Horos/OsiriX Lite (8.96), 2. RadiAnt (8.90), 3. K-PACS (8.02), 4. Synedra (7.43), 5. MAYAM (6.05), 6. Ginkgo CADx (5.53), 7. MITO (3.74). The DICOM-viewers offered between 20 and 44 tools of the predefined important tool set and are sufficient for most veterinary purposes. An increasing number of tools did not necessarily impair user-friendliness, if the user interface is well designed. Based on the results of this study, veterinarians will find suitable free DICOM-viewers for their individual needs. In combination with PACS-freeware, this allows veterinary practices to run a low-budget digital imaging environment.

Indexed as

Radiology Information SystemsElectronic Data ProcessingHumansRadiographySoftwareTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomography (CT)Diagnostic imagingDiagnostic radiologyDiagnostic ultrasound (US)Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)Digital radiography (DX)Imaging softwareMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Identifiers

PMID30859340
PMCPMC7064695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.