Sara Ruiz Martinez

Dr. Sara Ruiz Martinez

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
7 March 2019 in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DOD. Oros
D. Oros
SMSara Ruiz Martinez
Sara Ruiz Martinez
ESE. Staines‐Urias
E. Staines‐Urias
ACA. Conde‐Agudelo
A. Conde‐Agudelo
JVJ. Villar
J. Villar
APA. T. Papageorghiou
A. T. Papageorghiou

25 June 2019 in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SMSara Ruiz Martinez
Sara Ruiz Martinez
APA. T. Papageorghiou
A. T. Papageorghiou
ESE. Staines‐Urias
E. Staines‐Urias
JVJ. Villar
J. Villar
RAR. Gonzalez De Agüero
R. Gonzalez De Agüero
DOD. Oros
D. Oros

9 December 2016 in Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SMSara Ruiz Martinez
Sara Ruiz Martinez
MMMiguel Martinez‐Marin
Miguel Martinez‐Marin
PLPilar Luque
Pilar Luque
NNNadia Nassar
Nadia Nassar
DODaniel Oros
Daniel Oros

1 October 2021 in Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
IGItziar Garcia-Ruiz
Itziar Garcia-Ruiz
ESElena Sulleiro
Elena Sulleiro
BSBerta Serrano
Berta Serrano
IBIRENE FERNANDEZ BUHIGAS
IRENE FERNANDEZ BUHIGAS
LRLeire Rodriguez-Gomez
Leire Rodriguez-Gomez
JDJuan Luis Delgado
Juan Luis Delgado

10 September 2018 in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SMSara Ruiz Martinez
Sara Ruiz Martinez
GVG. Volpe
G. Volpe
SVSilvia Vannuccini
Silvia Vannuccini
ACA. Cavallaro
A. Cavallaro
LIL. Impey
L. Impey
CIC. Ioannou
C. Ioannou
Objective: To validate an objective scoring system for middle cerebral artery (MCA) pulsed wave Doppler images. Method: From an image database of routine 36-week scans, a random sample of MCA Doppler images was selected. Two reviewers rated the images subjectively as acceptable or unacceptable. Subsequently they used an objective 6-point image scoring system and awarded one point for each of the following: (1) anatomical site, (2) magnification, (3) angle of insonation, (4) image clarity, (5) sweep speed adjustment, and (6) velocity scale and baseline adjustment. Image scores 4–6 were defined as good quality whereas 0–3 as poor. The subjective and objective agreement between the two reviewers was compared using the adjusted Kappa statistic. Results: A total of 124 images were assessed. Using objective scoring the agreement rate between reviewers increased to 91.9% (κ = 0.839) compared to subjective agreement 75.8% (κ = 0.516). The agreement for each criterion was: anatomical site 91.1% (κ = 0.823), magnification 95.2% (κ = 0.903), clarity 83.9% (κ = 0.677), angle 96.0% (κ = 0.919), sweep speed 98.4% (κ = 0.968), and velocity scale and baseline 94.4% (κ = 0.887). Conclusion: Objective assessment of MCA Doppler images using a 6-point scoring system has greater interobserver agreement than subjective assessment and could be used for MCA Doppler quality assurance.

25 May 2020 in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Ana Cristina Lou-MercadéAna Cristina Lou-Mercadé
Ana Cristina Lou-Mercadé
OGO. Gavín
O. Gavín
DOD. Oros
D. Oros
CPCristina Paules
Cristina Paules
RSR. Savirón‐Cornudella
R. Savirón‐Cornudella
SMSara Ruiz Martinez
Sara Ruiz Martinez