Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 12/2004

01-12-2004 | Commentary

The gold standard: PACS alchemy and the gold standard

Authors: Kenneth Burgess, Thomas L. Slovis

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 12/2004

Login to get access

Excerpt

The primary advantage of PACS (picture archiving communications systems) is that it can place images and image information quickly and efficiently at the point of decision for the reader. Fast, accessible archives and soft-copy viewing (viewing from CRT or flat panel display), with its powerful diagnostic work-station tools, have brought increased productivity to the radiologist at a most needed time. In a time of decreasing reimbursement, staff shortages, and the pressures of reducing turn-around time, these benefits have driven the acceptance of softcopy reading devices. It has, however, redefined the gold standard of viewing for this environment. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Samei E, Flynn MJ (2002) An experimental comparison of detector performance for computer radiography systems. Med Phys 29:447–459CrossRefPubMed Samei E, Flynn MJ (2002) An experimental comparison of detector performance for computer radiography systems. Med Phys 29:447–459CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Huda W, Honeyman JC, Palmer CK, et al (1996) Computed radiography and film digitizer inputs to an intensive care teleradiology system: an image quality comparison. Acad Radiol 3:110–114PubMed Huda W, Honeyman JC, Palmer CK, et al (1996) Computed radiography and film digitizer inputs to an intensive care teleradiology system: an image quality comparison. Acad Radiol 3:110–114PubMed
3.
go back to reference Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GER, et al (2000) Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty and film with digital display. AJR 175:1233–1238PubMed Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GER, et al (2000) Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty and film with digital display. AJR 175:1233–1238PubMed
4.
go back to reference Krupinski E, McNeill K, Haber K, et al (2003) High volume teleradiology service: focus on radiologist satisfaction. J Digit Imaging 16:203–209CrossRefPubMed Krupinski E, McNeill K, Haber K, et al (2003) High volume teleradiology service: focus on radiologist satisfaction. J Digit Imaging 16:203–209CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Vizy K (1991) The human visual system: lessons from medical diagnostic image interpretation. Presented at the 87th InterPlant conference. Electronic and hybrid imaging systems, Rochester, NY Vizy K (1991) The human visual system: lessons from medical diagnostic image interpretation. Presented at the 87th InterPlant conference. Electronic and hybrid imaging systems, Rochester, NY
6.
go back to reference McCollough C, Breesewitz M, Vrtiska T, et al (2001) Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film computed, and CT scanned projection radiography applications to CT urography. Radiology 221:395–403PubMed McCollough C, Breesewitz M, Vrtiska T, et al (2001) Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film computed, and CT scanned projection radiography applications to CT urography. Radiology 221:395–403PubMed
7.
go back to reference Franken EA Jr, Smith WL, Berbaum KS, et al (1991) Comparison of a PACS workstation with conventional film for interpretation of neonatal examinations: a paired comparison study. Pediatr Radiol 21:336–340PubMed Franken EA Jr, Smith WL, Berbaum KS, et al (1991) Comparison of a PACS workstation with conventional film for interpretation of neonatal examinations: a paired comparison study. Pediatr Radiol 21:336–340PubMed
Metadata
Title
The gold standard: PACS alchemy and the gold standard
Authors
Kenneth Burgess
Thomas L. Slovis
Publication date
01-12-2004
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 12/2004
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1296-3

Other articles of this Issue 12/2004

Pediatric Radiology 12/2004 Go to the issue