Cargando…

A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes

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 MicroS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coppel, Jonny, Bountziouka, Vassiliki, Martin, Daniel, Gilbert-Kawai, Edward
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8084773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32372288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00514-x
_version_ 1783686221950615552
author Coppel, Jonny
Bountziouka, Vassiliki
Martin, Daniel
Gilbert-Kawai, Edward
author_facet Coppel, Jonny
Bountziouka, Vassiliki
Martin, Daniel
Gilbert-Kawai, Edward
author_sort Coppel, Jonny
collection PubMed
description 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 > 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
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8084773
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80847732021-05-05 A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes Coppel, Jonny Bountziouka, Vassiliki Martin, Daniel Gilbert-Kawai, Edward J Clin Monit Comput Original Research 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 > 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 Springer Netherlands 2020-05-06 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8084773/ /pubmed/32372288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00514-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Coppel, Jonny
Bountziouka, Vassiliki
Martin, Daniel
Gilbert-Kawai, Edward
A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
title A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
title_full A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
title_fullStr A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
title_short A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
title_sort comparison of the quality of image acquisition between two different sidestream dark field video-microscopes
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8084773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32372288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00514-x
work_keys_str_mv AT coppeljonny acomparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT bountzioukavassiliki acomparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT martindaniel acomparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT gilbertkawaiedward acomparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT coppeljonny comparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT bountzioukavassiliki comparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT martindaniel comparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes
AT gilbertkawaiedward comparisonofthequalityofimageacquisitionbetweentwodifferentsidestreamdarkfieldvideomicroscopes