Non-Invasive Microstructure and Morphology Investigation of the Mouse Lung: Qualitative Description and Quantitative Measurement

BACKGROUND: Early detection of lung cancer is known to improve the chances of successful treatment. However, lungs are soft tissues with complex three-dimensional configuration. Conventional X-ray imaging is based purely on absorption resulting in very low contrast when imaging soft tissues without contrast agents. It is difficult to obtain adequate information of lung lesions from conventional X-ray imaging. METHODS: In this study, a recently emerged imaging technique, in-line X-ray phase contrast imaging (IL-XPCI) was used. This powerful technique enabled high-resolution investigations of soft tissues without contrast agents. We applied IL-XPCI to observe the lungs in an intact mouse for the purpose of defining quantitatively the micro-structures in lung. FINDINGS: The three-dimensional model of the lung was successfully established, which provided an excellent view of lung airways. We highlighted the use of IL-XPCI in the visualization and assessment of alveoli which had rarely been studied in three dimensions (3D). The precise view of individual alveolus was achieved. The morphological parameters, such as diameter and alveolar surface area were measured. These parameters were of great importance in the diagnosis of diseases related to alveolus and alveolar scar. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that IL-XPCI had the ability to represent complex anatomical structures in lung. This offered a new perspective on the diagnosis of respiratory disease and may guide future work in the study of respiratory mechanism on the alveoli level

An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmic research

Clinical outcomes, such as quantifying the extent of visual field loss by automated perimetry, are valued highly by health professionals, but such measures do not capture the impact of the condition on a patient's life. Patient-reported outcomes describe any report or measure of health reported by the patient, without external interpretation by a clinician or researcher. In this review, we discuss the value of the measures that capture this information (patient-reported outcome measures; PROMs), and why they are important to both the clinician and the researcher. We also consider issues around developing or selecting a PROM for ophthalmic research, the emerging challenges around conducting and reporting PROMs in clinical trials and highlight best practice for their use. Search terms for this review comprised: (1) (patient-reported outcomes OR patient-reported outcome measures) AND (2) randomised controlled trials AND (3) limited to ophthalmic conditions. These terms were expanded as follows: (((‘patients'(MeSH Terms) OR ‘patients'(All Fields) OR ‘patient'(All Fields)) AND (‘research report'(MeSH Terms) OR (‘research'(All Fields) AND ‘report'(All Fields)) OR ‘research report'(All Fields) OR ‘reported'(All Fields)) AND outcomes(All Fields)) OR ((‘patients'(MeSH Terms) OR ‘patients'(All Fields) OR ‘patient'(All Fields)) AND (‘research report'(MeSH Terms) OR (‘research'(All Fields) AND ‘report'(All Fields)) OR ‘research report'(All Fields) OR ‘reported'(All Fields) AND (‘outcome assessment (health care)'(MeSH Terms) OR (‘outcome'(All Fields) AND ‘assessment'(All Fields) AND ‘(health'(All Fields) AND ‘care)'(All Fields)) OR ‘outcome assessment (health care)'(All Fields) OR (‘outcome'(All Fields) AND ‘measures'(All Fields)) OR ‘outcome measures'(All Fields)))) AND (‘randomized controlled trial'(Publication Type) OR ‘randomized controlled trials as topic'(MeSH Terms) OR ‘randomised controlled trials'(All Fields) OR ‘randomized controlled trials'(All Fields)) AND (ophth*(All Fields)). The authors also utilised the extensive non-ophthalmic literature and online resources relating to PROs and PROMs to inform this review