[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Health] Any open-source DICOM Viewer for Ubuntu?

From: Axel Braun
Subject: Re: [Health] Any open-source DICOM Viewer for Ubuntu?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:18:45 +0200
User-agent: K-9 Mail for Android

That would be the luxury version. If you have the choice between nothing and an uncertified software, what would you do?
Would be interesting to get the requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to judge whether there is a quality difference (which I doubt) or just a missing stamp.

Schöne Grüße
Written from cell phone - excuses for typos

Am 11. April 2017 11:27:02 MESZ schrieb Edgar Hagenbichler <address@hidden>:
We need  somebody experienced with certification, an offer for programming and approving it to the legal bodies, a timetable and then we can start crowdfunding. 
Best regards

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 11.04.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Jose C Cuellar <address@hidden>:

Many products, like OsiriX, have almost the same functionalities in the free-"not clinical" version and in the "not free"-FDA compliant version. The point that legally you can't use a not certificated PACS for diagnostic purposes. Many people make diagnostics with these not certified PACS, but you risk to have legal issues if a bad diagnostic is made when using them. Public hospitals in Europe won't accept any PACS without the CE2 certification, equivalent to FDA.

Certification can be made, but is a long and expensive process. Yes, we need a sponsor :-(

Best regards.

On 04/11/2017 08:49 AM, Axel Braun wrote:
This may be, indeed.
A formal act. And a national institution. Potentially impossible for free software to get this approval, as some money is involved. Anyone standing up for sponsoring?

Schöne Grüße
Written from cell phone - excuses for typos

Am 10. April 2017 20:17:04 MESZ schrieb "Leonardo M. Ramé" <address@hidden>:

I think what qualifies as diagnostic are those that counts with FDA approval.


El 10/04/17 a las 14:57, Axel Braun escribió:
Interesting question: what makes a viewer 'suitable for production ' or diagnostic?
Schöne Grüße
Written from cell phone - excuses for typos

Am 10. April 2017 18:17:13 MESZ schrieb Khurram Shahzad <address@hidden>:
Dear All,

Thank you very much for the valuable experiences and advice.

I have tried almost every DICOM Viewer discussed so far and it is revealed that all of them have certain limitations.

By the way, what do the lines "Not for diagnostic purpose" and "Clinically not suitable" (highlighted for all these viewers) mean? Are these viewers not production-ready? Or, we should not use them in production? If yes, these open-source viewers are useless for production and are we left with no option other than costly/non-free viewers?

Best Regards,

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Jérôme Pinguet <address@hidden> wrote:
On 02/19/2017 07:29 AM, Khurram Shahzad wrote:
Dear Community,

We are setting up Radiology Information System (RIS) at our hospital. I have chosen and installed Orthanc as PACS. Is it a good choice?

Now, I am looking for good (and free) DICOM viewer! Any ideas please? I have tried AESKULOP but it does not have good features. I have also tried Ginkgocadx on Ubuntu 16.04 but its behavior is not consistent; it does not run the videos of Ultrasound.


Orthanc is a very good choice, and it includes a DICOM viewer plugin [1].

The Ubuntu package is called orthanc-webviewer. It is available in the universe repository.

If you need more info don't hesitate to contact the author, Sébastien Jodogne, through his web site or on Twitter (@orthancserver).

Orthanc is free and open source software. It won the 2014 prize for best free software by the Free Software Foundation [2].


Jérôme Pinguet
general practitioner & dev of EHR
OpenPGP / GPG key: 0x14B7E62420E51038
I encrypt emails with GPG, Thunderbird & Enigmail.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]