Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11258234

DICOM reference guide.

Abstract

The Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine standard, known as DICOM, exists to facilitate communications between imaging devices and systems. By dictating specific data and interface requirements, DICOM helps ensure that devices--particularly devices made by different suppliers--can communicate with one another. Unfortunately, because different devices can implement the standard in different ways, not all devices that comply with the standard will be compatible. Thus, it's not enough for healthcare facilities to determine whether a device complies with the DICOM standard; they must also analyze how each device complies with the standard. This Reference Guide is intended to provide readers with the background information they need to perform such analyses. The Guide includes the following articles: THE BASICS: This article provides a brief overview of DICOM for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the standard. THE DETAILS: This article focuses on the specific DICOM components that readers will need to understand when working with the standard. EVALUATING DICOM CONFORMANCE STATEMENTS: This article describes how to determine whether, and to what degree, two devices will support communication with one another. In addition to offering detailed, step-by-step guidance, we include a DICOM Compatibility Matching Form to help readers organize the data they'll be analyzing during the evaluation process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

DICOM reference guide.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11258234/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Prodding tardy reviewers: a randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail.

CONTEXT: To compare telephone, fax, and e-mail methods of prodding tardy reviewers. METHODS: Randomized trial conducted January 1998 through June 1999 at the main editorial office of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Reviewers who had failed to file reviews by 28 days after being sent manuscripts (7 days after deadline) were sent identical messages in oral (telephone) or written (fax and e-mail) form inquiring as to the status of review, asking for its completion as soon as possible, and requesting it be sent by fax or e-mail. RESULTS: Of 378 reviewers, proportions returning reviews within 7 days were essentially identical: telephone, 85 (68%) of 125; fax, 86 (67%) of 129; and e-mail, 84 (67%) of 124 (P =.59). In the two thirds who responded, the mean time to return reviews did not differ among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Contacting tardy reviewers resulted in a review being received within 7 days in about two thirds of cases, and it made no difference if the contact was made by telephone, fax, or e-mail.

Computer Communication Networks↗