PURPOSE: Side-stream dark-field microscopy is currently used to directly visualize sublingual microcirculation at the bedside. Our experience has found inherent technical challenges in the image acquisition process. This article presents and assesses a quality assurance method to rate image acquisition quality before analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 6 common image capture and analysis problem areas in sublingual side-stream dark-field videos: illumination, duration, focus, content, stability, and pressure. We created the "Microcirculation Image Quality Score" by assigning a score of optimal (0 points), suboptimal but acceptable (1 point), or unacceptable (10 points) to each category (for further details, go to http://www.MicroscanAnalysis.blogspot.com). We evaluated 59 videos from a convenience sample of 34 unselected, noncritically ill emergency department patients to create a test set. Two raters, blinded to each other, implemented the score. Any video with a cumulative score of 10 or higher (range, 0-60) was considered unacceptable for further analysis. RESULTS: We created the Microcirculation Image Quality Score and applied it to 59 videos. For this particular set of 59 videos, the mean (SD) passing quality score was 1.68 (0.90), and the mean (SD) failing quality score was 15.74 (6.19), with 27 of 59 passing the quality score less than 10. Highest failure occurred from pressure artifact. The interrater agreement for acceptability was assessed using Cohen κ for each category: illumination (κ = 1.0), duration (κ = 1.0), focus (κ = 0.91), content (κ = 0.76), stability (κ = 0.71), and pressure (κ = 0.82) and overall pass-fail rates (score >10) (κ = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Our Microcirculation Image Quality Score addresses many of the common areas where video quality can degrade. The criteria introduced are an objective way to assess the quality of image acquisition, with the goal of selecting videos of adequate quality for analysis. The interrater reliability results in our preliminary study suggest that the Microcirculation Image Quality Score is reasonably repeatable between reviewers. Further assessment is warranted.
PURPOSE: Side-stream dark-field microscopy is currently used to directly visualize sublingual microcirculation at the bedside. Our experience has found inherent technical challenges in the image acquisition process. This article presents and assesses a quality assurance method to rate image acquisition quality before analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 6 common image capture and analysis problem areas in sublingual side-stream dark-field videos: illumination, duration, focus, content, stability, and pressure. We created the "Microcirculation Image Quality Score" by assigning a score of optimal (0 points), suboptimal but acceptable (1 point), or unacceptable (10 points) to each category (for further details, go to http://www.MicroscanAnalysis.blogspot.com). We evaluated 59 videos from a convenience sample of 34 unselected, noncritically ill emergency department patients to create a test set. Two raters, blinded to each other, implemented the score. Any video with a cumulative score of 10 or higher (range, 0-60) was considered unacceptable for further analysis. RESULTS: We created the Microcirculation Image Quality Score and applied it to 59 videos. For this particular set of 59 videos, the mean (SD) passing quality score was 1.68 (0.90), and the mean (SD) failing quality score was 15.74 (6.19), with 27 of 59 passing the quality score less than 10. Highest failure occurred from pressure artifact. The interrater agreement for acceptability was assessed using Cohen κ for each category: illumination (κ = 1.0), duration (κ = 1.0), focus (κ = 0.91), content (κ = 0.76), stability (κ = 0.71), and pressure (κ = 0.82) and overall pass-fail rates (score >10) (κ = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Our Microcirculation Image Quality Score addresses many of the common areas where video quality can degrade. The criteria introduced are an objective way to assess the quality of image acquisition, with the goal of selecting videos of adequate quality for analysis. The interrater reliability results in our preliminary study suggest that the Microcirculation Image Quality Score is reasonably repeatable between reviewers. Further assessment is warranted.
Authors: Norina N Gassmann; Hugo A van Elteren; Tom G Goos; Claudia R Morales; Maria Rivera-Ch; Daniel S Martin; Patricia Cabala Peralta; Agustin Passano Del Carpio; Saul Aranibar Machaca; Luis Huicho; Irwin K M Reiss; Max Gassmann; Rogier C J de Jonge Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2016-07-21
Authors: John C Greenwood; David H Jang; Stephen D Hallisey; Jacob T Gutsche; Jiri Horak; Michael A Acker; Christian A Bermudez; Victoria L Zhou; Shampa Chatterjee; Frances S Shofer; Todd J Kilbaugh; John G T Augoustides; Nuala J Meyer; Jan Bakker; Benjamin S Abella Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Edward Gilbert-Kawai; Jonny Coppel; Jo Court; Jildou van der Kaaij; Andre Vercueil; Martin Feelisch; Denny Levett; Monty Mythen; Michael P Grocott; Daniel Martin Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-01-26
Authors: Zühre Uz; Güçlü Aykut; Michael Massey; Yasin Ince; Bülent Ergin; Lucinda Shen; Fevzi Toraman; Thomas M van Gulik; Can Ince Journal: J Vasc Res Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 1.934