Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Full Report    Zoom in charts

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Ultrasound 2017
|
2017
Ultrasound 2014
|
2014
Ultrasound 2012
|
2012
General Ultrasound
|
2011
Ultrasound
|
2010

 End chart zoom
General Imaging Ultrasound Product Comparison Report 2014 General Imaging Ultrasound Product Comparison Report 2014
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

General Imaging Ultrasound Product Comparison Report 2014

June 15, 2014 | Read Time: 2  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 5/29/2022 3:28:14 AM and Model.reportId = 1004

BOTTOM LINES Ultrasound 2014: Saving Time and Money with Workflow

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 5/29/2022 3:28:14 AM and Model.reportId= 1004 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637716527137466038

GE HEALTHCARE 

Top performer. Providers praise the Scan Assistant tools and the ergonomic features such as ability to easily raise and lower the monitor. GE less costly on average. XDClear has additional functionality and excellent image resolution. The six provid - ers who rated it gave average score of 96 out of 100. Some regional variance in service—customers in the Southeast and Northeast not as happy as those in the Central or Western regions. A couple of providers noted poor quality of refurbished probes. 

PHILIPS 

Top-tier performer. Organ-identification tool saves time. Noticeable time-savings for vascular and extremity scans Automa - tion tools and touch-screen user interface very intuitive. Most expensive on average. Those using xMatrix probe very satisfied on average, though room to improve image quality. Early adopters of Philips’ new EPIQ platform report software glitches, resulting in less satisfaction for EPIQ customers than iU22 customers. 

SIEMENS 

Siemens lands fourth out of four. Users report good time-savings with breast imag - ing. Some like the automated protocols, but others say S2000 is complex, over - engineered compared to GE and Philips units. Some lingering glitches from initial S2000 rollout. Early adopters of the S3000 report improved image resolution, deeper penetration, better ergonomics, though at a higher price. 

TOSHIBA 

Ranked third, with a large drop over the last year. Almost five points behind Philips. Weakest performance in workflow automation. Biggest time-savings in OB/ GYN scans, but lagging behind other vendors in time saved with vascular/echo and extremity scans. Service and support lagging; over 20% said they would not buy again. Reported to be most expensive after Philips; however, a couple of providers mentioned an extended warranty option as adding some value.

 Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2022 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.