Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27301709›Full record

ReviewJournal of digital imaging2016

Enterprise Imaging Governance: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper.

Christopher J Roth, Louis M Lannum, Carol L Joseph

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of digital imaging, 2016. 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Enterprise Imaging Value Proposition.Journal of digital imaging · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Implementing the DICOM Standard for Digital Pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

3 authors.

Christopher J RothDuke Health Technology Solutions, Hock Plaza, 2424 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. Christopher.roth@duke.edu.
Louis M LannumInformation Technology Division, Cleveland Clinic, 572 Lake Forest Dr., Bay Village, Ohio, 44140-2513, USA.
Carol L JosephAscension Information Services, Clinical Information Services, 4600 Edmundson Road, St. Louis, MO, 63134, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enterprise imaging governance is an emerging need in health enterprises today. This white paper highlights the decision-making body, framework, and process for optimal enterprise imaging governance inclusive of five areas of focus: program governance, technology governance, information governance, clinical governance, and financial governance. It outlines relevant parallels and differences when forming or optimizing imaging governance as compared with other established broad horizontal governance groups, such as for the electronic health record. It is intended for CMIOs and health informatics leaders looking to grow and govern a program to optimally capture, store, index, distribute, view, exchange, and analyze the images of their enterprise.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDiagnostic ImagingElectronic Health RecordsHumansMedical InformaticsQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareDiagnostic ImagingDigital Image ManagementDigital ImagingDigital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)Electronic Medical Record (EMR)Enterprise ImagingEnterprise PACSGovernanceImage DataImage DisplayImage DistributionImaging InformaticsMultimediaPACSPACS Administration

Identifiers

PMID27301709
PMCPMC5023526

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.