2007
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-1043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reproducibility of Endothelial Assessment during Corneal Organ Culture: Comparison of a Computer-Assisted Analyzer with Manual Methods

Abstract: Manual counting shows systematic underestimation of ECD with high interobserver variability. The analyzer in automated mode overestimates ECD and is absolutely unreliable. Detection of cell contours by the specific algorithm, combined with manual correction by a skilled technician, appears to be the most reliable method of ECD and morphometry determination.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the current study, the precision estimated as the ratio between the residual standard deviation and the average estimated level (Table 1, 5th column) for polymegethism and pleomorphism was consistent with findings in other studies where inter‐operator and inter‐system variances were examined (de Sanctis et al. 2006; Deb‐Joardar et al. 2007a,b).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In the current study, the precision estimated as the ratio between the residual standard deviation and the average estimated level (Table 1, 5th column) for polymegethism and pleomorphism was consistent with findings in other studies where inter‐operator and inter‐system variances were examined (de Sanctis et al. 2006; Deb‐Joardar et al. 2007a,b).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…A common model for analysing the random error in endothelial morphometry is to divide the random error into inter‐system variation, inter‐operator variation and measurement error. Inter‐system variation, which involves inter‐operator variation, has been analysed in several recent studies (Deb‐Joardar et al. 2007a,b; Hirneiss et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Irrespective of apparent EC density (ECD), the best three images in terms of overall image quality were chosen. ECD and morphometry (coefficient of variation (CV) of cell area and hexagonal cell percentage) were determined using a Sambacornea endothelial analyzer (Sambatechnologies, Meylan, France) [25,26,27,28,29] on at least 300 cells. The entire corneal endothelium stained with trypan blue was also photographed with a digital camera (Canon EOS 350D, Tokyo, Japan).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, every cornea was procured by in situ excision with single-use sterile instrument, without any contact with retina or optic nerve, which are be considered as specific risk factors to possible iatrogenic spread of sporadic and variant prion disease [35,36]. We did risk analysis before the use of those corneas to develop our active storage machine to make evolve eyebanking, with assessment of their baseline intrinsic quality (endothelial cell density [37][38][39][40], transparency [41], presence of scar or not, presence of previous refractive surgery or not) and safety (no infection [42][43][44]), following tests used in daily routine in eyebanks. Furthermore, with these common medical contraindications people may wish to give but feel excluded from donation: donation for research can be a way to give them back this opportunity.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%