Integrated radiology

View and annotate imaging without leaving the case.

DoqViewer renders CT, MRI, X-ray and ultrasound studies in the browser. No plug-in, no separate workstation, no exporting frames into Word.

Annotations and measurements are stored against the study, with the pixel spacing and window they were taken at, so the numbers in the report can be checked rather than taken on trust. The marked-up frame drops into the draft with its study reference and date attached.

Why it matters

Keep the picture in the report tied to the picture in the study.

Every time an image is screenshotted and pasted into a document, a little fidelity and a little context are lost. The viewer removes those steps.

Because annotations and measurements live against the study rather than in a personal copy, a second expert added months later sees exactly what the first expert saw, and an opposing expert can check a measurement against the pixel spacing it was taken at. The marked-up frame reaches the report with its study reference and date attached, so the figure on the page can always be traced back to the source study.

In practice

From the study to the served report, with the trail intact.

Consider how a single key image usually reaches a report. It is opened on a workstation, captured to the clipboard, pasted into a document, and resized by hand. By the time it is served, the window setting is gone, the measurement is a number with no provenance, and the link to the source study is broken.

Working inside the viewer closes every one of those gaps. The window and level you read the study at are recorded, the measurement carries the pixel spacing it was taken at, and the frame reaches the report with its study reference and date attached. If an opposing expert questions a finding, you open the same study, at the same settings, and show your working. For longer instructions with serial imaging, the side-by-side comparison means you can demonstrate change over time in two synchronised panels rather than describing it from memory. The result is a report where every image can be traced back to the study it came from, which is exactly the standard a court expects of physical evidence and increasingly expects of digital evidence too.

Why the imaging usually ends up in a separate silo.

The study arrives on its own terms, and the report is written somewhere else entirely.

Imaging rarely travels with the rest of the bundle. It comes on a disc, through a transfer link, or from a different provider than the records, and it opens in software that has nothing to do with the document you are drafting. The practical result is a gap in the middle of the work: the study is examined in one place, a frame is exported, and the exported picture arrives in the report stripped of the reference that would let anyone find it again. Keeping the imaging inside the case closes that gap. The study sits with the records it belongs to, the marked-up frame carries its study reference into the report, and the connection between the picture in the document and the picture in the study survives the journey.

What this is, and what it is not.

This is a viewer for medico-legal work, not a replacement for clinical reporting.

The distinction matters. Examining a study to form and evidence an opinion in a claim is a different task from primary diagnostic reporting in a clinical setting, and the requirements around the second are properly stricter. What a medico-legal viewer has to do is let you look at what the record contains, mark what you are relying on, and carry that mark into the report with its reference intact, so that the reader of your opinion can follow you back to the source. Where a case genuinely turns on a finding at the edge of what the imaging supports, that is a question for your expertise and, if necessary, for the original reporting radiologist. No viewer settles it.