首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The British Journal of Ophthalmology >Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? The French experience
【2h】

Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? The French experience

机译:手动计算眼库角膜内皮细胞密度是否仍然可以接受?法国的经验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Aim: To examine the differences in manual endothelial cell counting methods in French eye banks and to analyse whether these differences could explain some substantial discrepancies observed in endothelial cell density (ECD) for corneas made available for transplant.>Methods: A questionnaire was sent to the 22 eye banks asking for details of the technical features of the light microscopes used, the microscope calibration, strategy for cell counting, the technical staff, and the method of presenting endothelial data.>Results: All eye banks responded and 91% (20/22) used only manual counting methods, in real time, directly through a microscope, and 62 different technicians, with varying experience, were involved in such counting. Counting of cells within the borders of a grid that were in contact with two adjacent borders was the most common method (17/22, 77%). Of the eight banks (8/22, 36%) that did not calibrate their microscopes, six reported the highest ECD values. Of the 14 others (64%), six applied a “magnification correcting factor” to the initial cell counts. In five of these cases, the corrected ECD was lower than estimated on initial count. Most of the banks (12/22, 55%) counted 100 cells or less in one to six non-adjacent zones of the mosaic. 14 of the banks (14/22, 64%) also graded cell polymegethism while seven (7/22, 32%) also graded pleomorphism (“hexagonality”).>Conclusions: Lack of microscope calibration appears to be the leading cause of variance in ECD estimates in French eye banks. Other factors such as differences in counting strategy, the evaluation of smaller numbers of cells, and the different extent of experience of the technicians may also contribute to intraobserver and interobserver variability. Further comparative studies, including cross checking and the outcome of repeated counts from manual methods, are clearly needed with cross calibration to a computer based image archiving and analysis system.
机译:>目标:研究法国眼库中手动内皮细胞计数方法的差异,并分析这些差异是否可以解释可用于移植的角膜内皮细胞密度(ECD)的某些实质性差异。 strong>方法:向22个眼库发送了问卷,询问所用光学显微镜的技术特点,显微镜校准,细胞计数策略,技术人员以及提供内皮细胞数据的方法的详细信息。>结果:所有眼库都做出了回应,有91%(20/22)的人仅直接通过显微镜实时使用了手动计数方法,并且有62名经验丰富的技术人员参与了这项工作数数。最常见的方法是对网格边界内与两个相邻边界接触的单元进行计数(17 / 22,77%)。在没有校准显微镜的八家银行(8 / 22,36%)中,六家银行报告了最高的ECD值。在其他14个(64%)中,有六个将“放大倍数校正因子”应用于初始细胞计数。在其中五种情况下,校正后的ECD低于初始计数的估计值。大多数银行(12 / 22,55%)在马赛克的一到六个非相邻区域中计数不到100个细胞。 14个银行(14 / 22,64%)也将细胞多态性分级,而七个银行(7 / 22,32%)也将多态性分级(“六边形”)。>结论:是法国眼库ECD估计差异的主要原因。其他因素,例如计数策略的差异,较小单元数的评估以及技术人员经验的不同程度,也可能导致观察者内部和观察者之间的差异。通过基于计算机的图像存档和分析系统的交叉校准,显然需要进一步的比较研究,包括交叉检查和手动方法重复计数的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号