Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 830

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How to evaluate the microcirculation: report of a round table conference

Open access
De Backer, Daniel, Hollenberg, Steven, Boerma, Christiaan, Goedhart, Peter, Büchele, Gustavo, Ospina-Tascon, Gustavo, Dobbe, Iwan, Ince, Can·2007·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: Microvascular alterations may play an important role in the development of organ failure in critically ill patients and especially in sepsis. Recent advances in technology have allowed visualization of the microcirculation, but several scoring systems have been used so it is sometimes difficult to compare studies. This paper reports the results of a round table conference that was organized in Amsterdam in November 2006 in order to achieve consensus on image acquisition and analysis. Methods: The participants convened to discuss the various aspects of image acquisition and the different scores, and a consensus statement was drafted using the Delphi methodology. Results: The participants identified the following five key points for optimal image acquisition: five sites per organ, avoidance of pressure artifacts, elimination of secretions, adequate focus and contrast adjustment, and recording quality. The scores that can be used to describe numerically the microcirculatory images consist of the following: a measure of vessel density (total and perfused vessel density; two indices of perfusion of the vessels (proportion of perfused vessels and microcirculatory flow index); and a heterogeneity index. In addition, this information should be provided for all vessels and for small vessels (mostly capillaries) identified as smaller than 20 μm. Venular perfusion should be reported as a quality control index, because venules should always be perfused in the absence of pressure artifact. It is anticipated that although this information is currently obtained manually, it is likely that image analysis software will ease analysis in the future. Conclusion: We proposed that scoring of the microcirculation should include an index of vascular density, assessment of capillary perfusion and a heterogeneity index.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/cc6118

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 830

Metadata

Authors
De Backer, D., Hollenberg, S., Boerma, C., Goedhart, P., Büchele, G., Ospina-Tascon, G., Dobbe, I., & Ince, C.
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2007-09-10
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
R101-R101
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078206871
Cited by
830
References
0
FWCI
21.57
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: How to evaluate the microcirculation: report of a round table conference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc6118
The paper
De Backer, D., Hollenberg, S., Boerma, C., Goedhart, P., Büchele, G., Ospina-Tascon, G., Dobbe, I., & Ince, C. (2007). How to evaluate the microcirculation: report of a round table conference. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6118

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.