Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A process and criteria for the evaluation of software frameworks in the domain of computer assisted surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software application frameworks provide a modular and reusable context for the development of custom applications, e.g. in the domain of medical image processing and computer assisted surgery (CAS). The utilization of an appropriate software framework can strongly reduce time and costs for software design, implementation, and validation. However, the decision to apply a particular framework poses many risks that can have an impact on the success of the overall software project. There is a need for a software framework evaluation methodology that guides the selection process in an objective, impartial, and repeatable manner. This work defines an evaluation process for the selection of software application frameworks out of a group of candidates that fit best to defined requirements necessary for the development of CAS applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykanen P, Prokosch H, Rigby M, Talmon J (2004) Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems: reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inform 73(6):479–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ammenwerth E, Graber S, Herrmann G, Burkle T, Konig J (2003) Evaluation of health information systems—problems and challenges. Int J Med Inform 71(2–3):125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bosch J, Molin P, Mattsson M, Bengtsson P (2000) Object-oriented framework-based software development: problems and experiences. ACM Comput Surv 32(1):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burgielski Z, Jansen T, von Rymon-Lipinski B, Hanssen N, Keeve E (2002) Julius—a software framework for computer-aided-surgery. Biomed Tech (Berl) 47(Suppl 1 Pt 1):101–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Comella-Dorda S, Dean JC, Morris EJ, Oberndorf PA (2002) A process for COTS software product evaluation. International conference on COTS-based software systems (ICCBSS), pp 86–96

  6. Fayad M, Schmidt DC (1997) Object-oriented application frameworks. Commun ACM 40(10):32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gary K, Ibanez L, Aylward S, Gobbi D, Blake MB, Cleary K (2006) IGSTK: an open source software toolkit for image-guided surgery. Computer 39(4):46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. International organisation for standardization (ISO) (1999) ISO/IEC 14598—1:1999 information technology—software product evaluation. ISO/IEC, Geneva, Switzerland

  9. Jian X, Jie T, Mingchang Z, Huiguang H (2005) The design and implementation of a novel platform for medical data visualization. Computer supported cooperative work in design, proceedings of the ninth international conference on computer-supported cooperative work 2:728–733

  10. Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fur Informationstechnik Berlin (2006) Amira—advanced 3D visualization and volume modeling—user’s guide and reference manual. Berlin, Germany

  11. Korb W, Bohn S, Burgert O et al (2005) Surgical PACS for the digital operating room. Stud Health Technol Inform 119:267–272

    Google Scholar 

  12. MeVis Center For Medical Diagnostic Systems And Visualization in Bremen Germany, MeVisLab—medical image processing and visualization, http://www.mevislab.de, 29.01.2007

  13. Ralph EJ, Brian F (1988) Designing reusable classes. J Object-Oriented Prog 1(2):22–35

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robb RA, Hanson DP (1990) ANALYZE: a software system for biomedical image analysis. Visualization in biomedical computing, proceedings of the first conference on visualization in biomedical computing, Atlanta, GA, pp 507–518

  15. Samset E, Hans A, von Spiczak J, et al (2006) The SIGN: a dynamic and extensible software framework for image-guided therapy. MICCAI workshop on open source and data for medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, insight-journal

  16. Seifert S, Burgert O, Dillmann R (2002) MEDIFRAME—an extendable software framework for medical applications. Proceedings of surgetica conference, Grenoble, France, pp 224–231

  17. Vasquez A, Bohn S, Gessat M, Burgert O (2007) Evaluation of open source DICOM frameworks. Multi-center information management (MCIM) 2007 workshop, St. Louis

  18. Viceconti M, Astolfi L, Leardini A et al (2004) The multimod application framework. IV ‘04: proceedings of the information visualisation, eighth international conference on information visualisation, pp 15–20

  19. Wolf I, Vetter M, Wegner I et al (2005) The medical imaging interaction toolkit. Med Image Anal 9(6):594–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Strasse 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Stefan Bohn, Werner Korb & Oliver Burgert

Authors
  1. Stefan Bohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Werner Korb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Burgert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Bohn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bohn, S., Korb, W. & Burgert, O. A process and criteria for the evaluation of software frameworks in the domain of computer assisted surgery. Med Biol Eng Comput 46, 1209–1217 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-008-0336-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-008-0336-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation