期刊文献+

应用层次分析法研究不同岗位人员对PACS指标的选择优先度 被引量:1

Research on the PACS selection priorities in different groups by analytic hierarchy process approach
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:应用层次分析法研究临床医生、放射科人员、影像存档与传输系统(PACS)供应商和计算机工程人员等对PACS指标的选择优先度。方法:在咨询专家的基础上确定PACS的核心指标,再将这些指标分类、整理成层级化的结构。应用层次分析法确定层级化结构一级指标和二级指标的优先权重值。权重值通过一致性检验即是对PACS指标的选择优先度。结果:在3个一级指标中,4种不同岗位人员均将PACS功能和性能的重要性放在首一、首二的位置(权重值为0.3234~0.5876),而将PACS的组件重要性放在次要位置(权重值为0.0667~0.0890)。在13个二级指标中,PACS指标选择优先度差异很大,最大权重值为0.7,最小为0.0338。结论:层次分析法可有效评估不同岗位人员对PACS指标的选择优先度。 Objective: To find the PACS selection priorities in different groups (like clinicians, radiological staff PACS providers and engineers) by using analytic hierarchy process approach. Methods: The key indicators for PACS were identified by consulting experts and classified into different levels. Analytical hierarchy process methodology was used to determine the relative priority weights of each dimension. Results: Among the 3 first level indicators, all the responders put PACS function and performance at No.1 or No.2 (weighted value is 0.3234~0.5876), and put PACS component at the least important level (weighted value is 0.0667~0.0890). Among 13 sub-indicators, the relative priority weights varied wildly (from 0.0338 to 0.7). Conclusion: Analytical hierarchy process can evaluate the PACS selection priorities in different groups effectively.
出处 《中国医学装备》 2013年第8期23-26,共4页 China Medical Equipment
关键词 层次分析法 医学影像存档与传输系统 优先度 Analytic hierarchy process Picture archiving and communication systems Priorties
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1王文生,王鹏程,谢晋东,韩彬,张艳芳.PACS在我国的应用与进展[J].中国医学装备,2008,5(3):59-61. 被引量:19
  • 2仇建云,桂朝伟,唐晓薇,姜山.PACS系统的关键技术及应用[J].中国医学装备,2011,8(9):31-33. 被引量:12
  • 3Reinhardt U.Divide et impera.protecting the growth of health care incomes(COSTS)[J].Health Econ, 2012,21 (1): 41-54.
  • 4Saaty TL.A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures[J]. J Math Psychol, 1977, 15(1),8-12.
  • 5Joshi V,Lee K,Melson D,et al. Empirical investigation of radiologists' priorities for PACS selection.an analytical hierarchy process approach[J].J Digit Imaging,2011,24(4),700-708.
  • 6Bracale U,Rovani M,Bracale M,et al.Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, meta-analysis of short-term outcomes[J].Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2012,21 (3) : 150-60.
  • 7Bridges JF,Mohamed AF,Finnern HW,et al.Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer:a conjoint analysis[J]. Lung Cancer, 2012,77(1): 224-231.
  • 8de Bekker-Grob EW,Ryan M, Gerard K.Discrete choice experiments in health economics:a review of the literature[J].Health Econ,2012,21(2).145- 172.
  • 9Scholl A,Manthey L,helm R,et ai.Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis.an empirical comparison[J].Eur J Oper Res,2005, 164(3): 760-777.
  • 10Ijzerman MJ,van Tii JA,Bridges JF.A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation[J]. Patient, 2012,5 (1) :45- 56.

二级参考文献26

共引文献141

同被引文献14

引证文献1

二级引证文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部