The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying bedside-derived imaging of microcirculatory abnormalities in septic patients: a prospective validation study
Open accessAbstract
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. Methods: In a consensus meeting with collaboraters from six research centres in different fields of experience with microcirculatory OPS imaging, premeditated qualifications for a simple, translucent and reproducible way of flow scoring were defined. Consecutively, a single-centre prospective observational validation study was performed in a group of 12 patients with an abdominal sepsis and a new stoma. Flow images of the microcirculation in vascular beds of the sublingual and stoma region were obtained, processed and analysed in a standardised way. We validated intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility with kappa cross-tables for both types of microvascular beds. Results: Agreement and kappa coefficients were >85% and >0.75, respectively, for interrater and intrarater variability in quantification of flow abnormalities during sepsis, in different subsets of microvascular architecture. Conclusion: Semi-quantitative analysis of microcirculatory flow, as described, provides a reproducible and transparent tool in clinical research to monitor and evaluate the microcirculation during sepsis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Cited by
Dubin, A., Pozo, M. O., Casabella, C. A., Pálizas, F., Murias, G., Moseinco, M. C., Kanoore Edul, V. S., Pálizas, F., Estenssoro, E., & Ince, C. (2009) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc7922 · Cited by 466
Self-citationKanoore Edul, V. S., Enrico, C., Laviolle, B., Risso Vazquez, A., Ince, C., & Dubin, A. (2012) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31823dae59 · Cited by 274
Self-citationHow to assess intestinal viability during surgery: A review of techniques
Urbanavičius, L. (2011) · World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.4240/wjgs.v3.i5.59 · Cited by 235
Wijnands, K. A. P., Vink, H., Briedé, J. J., van Faassen, E. E., Lamers, W. H., Buurman, W. A., & Poeze, M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037439 · Cited by 136
“time no flow, 2 = sludging, 3 = normal or 4 = hyperdynamic flow) [2].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBezemer, R., Lima, A., Myers, D., Klijn, E., Heger, M., Goedhart, P. T., Bakker, J., & Ince, C. (2009) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc8002 · Cited by 103
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Boerma, E. C., Mathura, K. R., van der Voort, P. H., Spronk, P. E., & Ince, C.
- Venue
- Critical Care
- Published
- 2005-09-22
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- R601-6
- ISSN
- 1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2109637252
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantifying bedside-derived imaging of microcirculatory abnormalities in septic patients: a prospective validation study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc3809
- The paper
- Boerma, E. C., Mathura, K. R., van der Voort, P. H., Spronk, P. E., & Ince, C. (2005). Quantifying bedside-derived imaging of microcirculatory abnormalities in septic patients: a prospective validation study. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3809
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.