Table 4

Endothelial cell density (ECD) of homogeneous corneas (group 1, n=30) by automated analysis method: mono-image (each of the three images is analysed in isolation) or tri-image (the three images are analysed simultaneously) for 50 and 300 cells, and comparisons with manual count

Analysis methodNoMean ECD (cells/mm2(SD, range)Mean ECD (cells/mm2) discrepancy with manual count (p)Pearson's r*
*all p values <0.001.
†Missing data: 300 cells uncountable due to adequate or medium image quality. ‡‡The manual count underestimated ECD by a mean 3.8% (mean: 90 cells/mm2, range 47–139) in comparison with the automated analyses. Correlations between automated-analysis methods and manual count were good (r = 0.78–0.88) in mono-image and excellent (r = 0.90–0.93) in tri-image.
ECD = endothelial cell density, SD = standard deviation, Mono 50 = analysis of one image and 50 cells, Mono 300 = analysis of one image and 300 cells, Tri-image 50 = analysis of three images simultaneously and 50 cells, tri-image 300 = analysis of three images simultaneously and 300 cells.
Mono 50 (image 1)302473 (389, 1773–3816)139 (p=0.003)0.81
Mono 50 (image 2)302400 (357, 1805–3460)66 (p=0.123)0.78
Mono 50 (image 3)302381 (329, 1912–3344)47 (p=0.172)0.83
Mono 300 (image 1)28†2480 (363, 1782–3533)128 (p=0.001)0.88
Mono 300 (image 2)28†2390 (324, 1814–3367)76 (p=0.040)0.82
Mono 300 (image 3)29†2398 (313, 1897–3174)63 (p=0.032)0.88
Tri image 50302447 (363, 1865–3636)113 (p=0.002)0.90
Tri image 300302422 (312, 1862–3448)87 (p=0.001)0.93
Manual count302334 (245, 1781–2990)