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
Axel
--
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 Edgar Von meinem iPhone gesendet
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
Axel
--
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.
--
Leonardo
El 10/04/17 a las 14:57, Axel
Braun escribió:
Interesting question: what makes a viewer
'suitable for production ' or diagnostic?
Schöne Grüße
Axel
--
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,
Khurram.
|