Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCoppel, Jonny
dc.contributor.authorBountziouka, V
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorGilbert-Kawai, E
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-20T11:20:05Z
dc.date.issued2021-05
dc.identifier.issn1387-1307
dc.identifier.issn1573-2614
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/16401
dc.description.abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Sidestream dark field (SDF) imaging enables direct visualisation of the microvasculature from which quantification of key variables is possible. The new MicroScan USB3 (MS-U) video-microscope is a hand-held SDF device that has undergone significant technical upgrades from its predecessor, the MicroScan Analogue (MS-A). The MS-U claims superior quality of sublingual microcirculatory image acquisition over the MS-A, however, this has yet to be robustly confirmed. In this manuscript, we therefore compare the quality of image acquisition between these two devices. The microcirculation of healthy volunteers was visualised to generate thirty video images for each device. Two independent raters, blinded to the device type, graded the quality of the images according to the six different traits in the Microcirculation Image Quality Score (MIQS) system. Chi-squared tests and Kappa statistics were used to compare not only the distribution of scores between the devices, but also agreement between raters. MS-U showed superior image quality over MS-A in three of out six MIQS traits; MS-U had significantly more optimal images by illumination (MS-U 95% optimal images, MS-A 70% optimal images (p-value 0.003)), by focus (MS-U 70% optimal images, MS-A 35% optimal images (p-value 0.002)) and by pressure (MS-U 72.5% optimal images, MS-A 47.5% optimal images (p-value 0.02)). For each trait, there was at least 85% agreement between the raters, and all the scores for each trait were independent of the rater (all p-values &gt; 0.05). These results show that the new MS-U provides a superior quality of sublingual microcirculatory image acquisition when compared to old MS-A</jats:p>

dc.format.extent577-583
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectMicrocirculation
dc.subjectMicroscopy
dc.subjectValidation
dc.subjectCapillary
dc.titleA comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000530584900001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue3
plymouth.volume35
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalJournal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10877-020-00514-x
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-04-27
dc.rights.embargodate9999-12-31
dc.identifier.eissn1573-2614
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s10877-020-00514-x
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-05
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV