↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between the incident dark field and sidestream dark field video-microscopes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of the quality of image acquisition between the incident dark field and sidestream dark field video-microscopes
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12880-015-0078-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward Gilbert-Kawai, Jonny Coppel, Vassiliki Bountziouka, Can Ince, Daniel Martin, for the Caudwell Xtreme Everest and Xtreme Everest 2 Research Groups

Abstract

The 'Cytocam' is a third generation video-microscope, which enables real time visualisation of the in vivo microcirculation. Based upon the principle of incident dark field (IDF) illumination, this hand held computer-controlled device was designed to address the technical limitations of its predecessors, orthogonal polarization spectroscopy and sidestream dark field (SDF) imaging. In this manuscript, we aimed to compare the quality of sublingual microcirculatory image acquisition between the IDF and SDF devices. Using the microcirculatory image quality scoring (MIQS) system, (six categories scored as either 0 = optimal, 1 = acceptable, or 10 = unacceptable), two independent raters compared 30 films acquired using the Cytocam IDF video-microscope, to an equal number obtained with an SDF device. Blinded to the origin of the films, the raters were therefore able to score between 0 and 60 for each film analysed. The scores' distributions between the two techniques were compared. The median MIQS (95 % CI) given to the SDF camera was 7 (1.5-12), as compared to 1 (0.5-1.0) for the IDF device (p < 0.0001). Of the six categories assessed by the MIQS, nearly one fifth of the SDF videos were scored as unacceptable for pressure (20 %), content (20 %), and stability (17 %), with focus scoring deficiently 13 % of the time. High agreement between the two raters scoring values was evident, with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.96 (95 % CI: 0.94, 0.98). These results demonstrate that the quality of sublingual microcirculatory image acquisition is superior in the Cytocam IDF video-microscope, as compared to the SDF video-microscope.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,306,690
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#451
of 597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,725
of 394,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.