Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40973909›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

A Comprehensive Guide to Selecting and (Potentially) Replacing PACS: Navigating the Decision-Making Processes.

Rajeev Nowrangi, Stacey M Elangovan, Brian D Coley, Eric J Crotty, Arnold C Merrow, Usha D Nagaraj, Sara M O'Hara, Susan N Smith, Paula Bennett, Alexander J Towbin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Rajeev NowrangiDepartment of Radiology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, USA.
Stacey M ElangovanDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5359-9115
Brian D ColeyDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0354-4727
Eric J CrottyDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1927-3789
Arnold C MerrowDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0228-4495
Usha D NagarajDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8251-7481
Sara M O'HaraDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Susan N SmithDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Paula BennettDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Alexander J TowbinDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA. alexander.towbin@cchmc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1729-5071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selecting a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) is a strategic decision that impacts radiology workflow, communication, and operational efficiency. Despite its importance, there is limited guidance on structured approaches to PACS procurement. This study aims to describe a comprehensive, data-driven approach to evaluating and selecting a clinical PACS within a radiology department. A six-phase process was developed: team formation, expectation setting, background assessment, initial vendor assessment, virtual demonstrations, and final evaluation. A multidisciplinary committee identified key pillars and concepts for PACS functionality, which informed vendor evaluations through surveys, standardized demonstrations, and a detailed request for proposal. Quantitative and qualitative data were used at each phase to score vendors across multiple dimensions including usability, integration, performance, and cost. Eleven pillars and 236 concepts were defined and weighted to evaluate vendor solutions. Five vendors were shortlisted after an initial presentation. These vendors were invited to provide a virtual demonstration. Three vendors were then selected for onsite assessments using department-generated anonymized datasets. Comprehensive RFPs and cost analyses were incorporated into final evaluations. Ultimately, the incumbent vendor was selected with a recommendation for reevaluation in 3 years, guided by detailed assessment metrics and stakeholder feedback. This case study offers a potentially reproducible methodology for healthcare institutions evaluating PACS solutions. Emphasizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, and data-driven decision-making, the approach should be adaptable to other technology procurement efforts and scalable to smaller projects.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRadiology Information SystemsHumansWorkflowGovernanceImaging informaticsPACSProcurement

Identifiers

PMID40973909
PMCPMC13230394

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.