Sachiko Maruoka1, Shunsuke Nakakura2, Naoko Matsuo2, Kayo Yoshitomi2, Chikako Katakami2, Hitoshi Tabuchi2, Taiichiro Chikama3, Yoshiaki Kiuchi3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Saneikai Tsukazaki Hospital, 68-1 Aboshi Waku, Himeji, 671-1227, Japan. s.maruoka@tsukazaki-eye.net. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Saneikai Tsukazaki Hospital, 68-1 Aboshi Waku, Himeji, 671-1227, Japan. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Minami, Kasumi, Hioroshima, 734-8553, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate two specular microscopy analysis methods across different endothelial cell densities (ECDs). METHODS: Endothelial images of one eye from each of 45 patients were taken by using three different specular microscopes (three replicates each). To determine the consistency of the center-dot method, we compared SP-6000 and SP-2000P images. CME-530 and SP-6000 images were compared to assess the consistency of the fully automated method. The SP-6000 images from the two methods were compared. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the three measurements were calculated, and parametric multiple comparisons tests and Bland-Altman analysis were performed. RESULTS: The ECD mean value was 2425 ± 883 (range 516-3707) cells/mm2. ICC values were > 0.9 for all three microscopes for ECD, but the coefficients of variation (CVs) were 0.3-0.6. For ECD measurements, Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference was 42 cells/mm2 between the SP-2000P and SP-6000 for the center-dot method; 57 cells/mm2 between the SP-6000 measurements from both methods; and -5 cells/mm2 between the SP-6000 and CME-530 for the fully automated method (95% limits of agreement: - 201 to 284 cell/mm2, - 410 to 522 cells/mm2, and - 327 to 318 cells/mm2, respectively). For CV measurements, the mean differences were - 3, - 12, and 13% (95% limits of agreement - 18 to 11, - 26 to 2, and - 5 to 32%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite using three replicate measurements, the precision of the center-dot method with the SP-2000P and SP-6000 software was only ± 10% for ECD data and was even worse for the fully automated method. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Clinical Trials Register ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm9 ) number UMIN 000015236.
PURPOSE: To evaluate two specular microscopy analysis methods across different endothelial cell densities (ECDs). METHODS: Endothelial images of one eye from each of 45 patients were taken by using three different specular microscopes (three replicates each). To determine the consistency of the center-dot method, we compared SP-6000 and SP-2000P images. CME-530 and SP-6000 images were compared to assess the consistency of the fully automated method. The SP-6000 images from the two methods were compared. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the three measurements were calculated, and parametric multiple comparisons tests and Bland-Altman analysis were performed. RESULTS: The ECD mean value was 2425 ± 883 (range 516-3707) cells/mm2. ICC values were > 0.9 for all three microscopes for ECD, but the coefficients of variation (CVs) were 0.3-0.6. For ECD measurements, Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference was 42 cells/mm2 between the SP-2000P and SP-6000 for the center-dot method; 57 cells/mm2 between the SP-6000 measurements from both methods; and -5 cells/mm2 between the SP-6000 and CME-530 for the fully automated method (95% limits of agreement: - 201 to 284 cell/mm2, - 410 to 522 cells/mm2, and - 327 to 318 cells/mm2, respectively). For CV measurements, the mean differences were - 3, - 12, and 13% (95% limits of agreement - 18 to 11, - 26 to 2, and - 5 to 32%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite using three replicate measurements, the precision of the center-dot method with the SP-2000P and SP-6000 software was only ± 10% for ECD data and was even worse for the fully automated method. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Clinical Trials Register ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm9 ) number UMIN 000015236.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fully automated method without any cell border correction; Low ECD; Semi-automated center-dot method; Specular microscopy
Authors: Scott MacRae; Jack T Holladay; Gene Hilmantel; Don Calogero; Samuel Masket; Walter Stark; Adrian Glasser; Eva Rorer; Michelle E Tarver; Tieuvi Nguyen; Malvina Eydelman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Gwyneth A van Rijn; C Jasper F Wijnen; Bart Th van Dooren; Yanny Yy Cheng; Jan-Willem M Beenakker; Gregorius Pm Luyten Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-01-13