Comparison of an automatic analysis and a manual analysis of conjunctival microcirculation in a sheep model of haemorrhagic shock

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Table 3 Intraclass correlation coefficient between manual and automatic analyses

Variable	Data set	Number	ICC [95% CI]	Agreement
TVD [mm*mm⁻²]	All videos	85	−0.267 [−0.949–0.176]	Poor
	Baseline	41	−0.069 [−1.01–0.430]	Poor
	Shock	44	−0.568 [−1.874–0.144]	Poor
PVD [mm*mm⁻²]	All videos	85	−0.219 [−0.875–0.208]	Poor
	Baseline	41	−0.013 [−0.899–0.460]	Poor
	Shock	44	−0.379 [−1.538–0.247]	Poor
PPV [%]	All videos	85	−0.074 [− 0.651–0.302]	Poor
	Baseline	41	0.274 [− 0.361–0.613]	Poor
	Shock	44	−0.193 [−1.187–0.349]	Poor

Agreement as suggested by Cicchetti [15] (values below 0.40 are considered as “poor” agreement, between 0.40 and 0.59 as “fair” agreement, between 0.60 and 0.74 as “good” agreement and for greater 0.74, the level of agreement is “excellent”)
ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CI confidence interval, TVD total vessel density, PVD perfused vessel density, PPV proportion of perfused vessels