Responses

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Flow diverters: inter and intra-rater reliability of porosity and pore density measurements
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Repeatability when measuring porosity and pore density of flow diverters: can we measure in vivo?
    • Ignacio Larrabide, Researcher Pladema-CONICET, UNICEN
    • Other Contributors:
      • Demetrius Lopes, NRI

    The paper by Farzin et al.[1] shows interesting results about measuring porosity of fully expanded flow diverter stents using (photographic) images of the stent being assessed. In their study, authors used 3 different methods and repeated measurements by different observers to assess the porosity of stents. According to their results, the variability when measuring porosity is so large that previous works assessing it should be questioned. On the other hand, they indicate that pore density seems to be more reliable and repeatable. The study highlights the difficulty of measuring such parameter in a controlled in vitro environment. After carefully reading the article, it became clear that the most reproducible way of measuring porosity, from the 3 options studied, was M3 (based on measuring the width and length of the struts and number of struts per reference square). Furthermore, some simple assumptions should improve the results and substantially reduce errors and variability:
    1. Wire width: the value for wire width, indicated by the manufacturer, is likely to be more accurate. If this value is no to be trusted, at least in average, then the reproducibility of the manufacturing process could not be trusted. Measuring wire width directly on the images is likely to introduce error as it might be affected by reflection/refraction of light on the wire material and wire coating, as well as lens imperfections or optical aberrations in some cases.
    2. Calculating poro...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.