| Literature DB >> 16280059 |
E Christiaan Boerma1, Keshen R Mathura, Peter H J van der Voort, Peter E Spronk, Can Ince.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The introduction of orthogonal polarization spectral (OPS) imaging in clinical research has elucidated new perspectives on the role of microcirculatory flow abnormalities in the pathogenesis of sepsis. Essential to the process of understanding and reproducing these abnormalities is the method of quantification of flow scores.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2005 PMID: 16280059 PMCID: PMC1414044 DOI: 10.1186/cc3809
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Figure 1Orthogonal polarization imaging of a microvascular network; the sublingual microvascular architecture. The image is divided in four quadrants (a, b, c and d) with examples of vessel classification: small (s; 10 to 25 μm); medium (m; 26 to 50 μm); large (l; 51 to 100 μm). Objective 5×, on screen 325×.
Figure 2Orthogonal polarization imaging of a repeating vascular structure; the villi of the small intestine. Objective 5×, on screen 325×.
Example of microvascular flow index calculation for a (sublingual) microvascular network
| Flow | Quadrant A | Quadrant B | Quadrant C | Quadrant D | MFI |
| Small | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 10/4 = 2.5 |
| Medium | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10/4 = 2.5 |
| Large | - | 3 | 3 | - | 6/2 = 3 |
MFI, microvascular flow index.
Example of microvascular flow index calculation for a repeating microvascular structure (gut villi)
| Quadrant A | Quadrant B | Quadrant C | Quadrant D | MFI | |
| Flow villi | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 10/4 = 2.5 |
MFI, Microvascular flow index
Inter-observer agreement for flow score in the sublingual region
| Observer 1 | |||||
| Observer 2 | Flow 0 | Flow 1 | Flow 2 | Flow 3 | |
| Flow 0 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Flow 1 | 2 | 22 | 3 | 0 | |
| Flow 2 | 0 | 4 | 65 | 8 | |
| Flow 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 99 | |
| Total | 224 | ||||
Statistical data for semi-quantitative flow scoring in the sublingual region and in combined stoma sites
| Reliability | Agreement | Chance | Kappaa | κw |
| Sublingual | ||||
| Interrater | 0.90 | 0.35 | 0.85 (0.79–0.91) | 0.90 |
| Intrarater | 0.86 | 0.37 | 0.78 (0.67–0.89) | 0.81 |
| Stoma | ||||
| Interrater | 0.89 | 0.28 | 0.84 (0.75–0.93) | 0.89 |
| Intrarater | 0.89 | 0.36 | 0.83 (0.71–0.94) | 0.89 |
aKappa plus 95% confidence intervals between brackets; κw = weighted kappa coefficient.
Inter-observer agreement for flow score in the combined stoma sites
| Observer 1 | |||||
| Observer 2 | Flow 0 | Flow 1 | Flow 2 | Flow 3 | |
| Flow 0 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Flow 1 | 0 | 21 | 1 | 0 | |
| Flow 2 | 0 | 6 | 29 | 1 | |
| Flow 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | |
| Total | 96 | ||||
Intra-observer agreement for flow score in the sublingual region
| Observer 1 | |||||
| Observer 2 | Flow 0 | Flow 1 | Flow 2 | Flow 3 | |
| Flow 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Flow 1 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 2 | |
| Flow 2 | 0 | 1 | 30 | 7 | |
| Flow 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 42 | |
| Total | 100 | ||||
Intra-observer agreement for flow score in the combined stoma sites
| Observer 1 | |||||
| Observer 2 | Flow 0 | Flow 1 | Flow 2 | Flow 3 | |
| Flow 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Flow 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | |
| Flow 2 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | |
| Flow 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20 | |
| Total | 72 | ||||
aKappa plus 95% confidence intervals between brackets; κw = weighted kappa coefficient.