PURPOSE: To describe differences between number of cells, evaluated endothelial area and relative error comparing endothelial samples from one endothelial image with endothelial samples obtained by guidance of a specific software, with number of cells and images as many as necessary. METHODS: A transversal study was performed, comparing the endothelial samples with and without intervention of the software. The sample consisted of 157 eyes. They were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of data of the first image and group 2 consisted of data from as many images as necessary for a complete examination guided by the Cells Analyser software (95% confidence interval and 0.05 relative error). The evaluated data were number of counted cells, equivalent evaluated field (mm²) and relative error. Student's t test with 99% confidence interval (p<0.01) was used. RESULTS: The compared data showed statistically significant differences between groups 1 and 2 in cell count (p=4x10-24), evaluated endothelial field (p=2x10-18) and relative error (p=1x10-21). CONCLUSION: The study of the sample data with or without the analysis of the software Cells Analyzer® showed statistically significant differences showing clearly the importance of using it in order to obtain representative, standardized and reproducible results of specular microscopy examination.
Endothelium, corneal; Microscopy; Statistical analysis; Software; Reproducibility of results; Comparative study
