Table 2. Geographic location study–Cell density as a function of distance from optic nerve head.
| Comparison: Cell density | Mean 1 | Mean 2 | Mean Diff. | SEM of diff. | n1 | n2 | q | DF | Significant? | Adjusted P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macula versus Mid Periphery |
454 |
414.5 |
39.47 |
53.26 |
4 |
4 |
1.048 |
9 |
No |
0.7462 |
| Macula versus Far Periphery |
454 |
205.1 |
248.9 |
53.26 |
4 |
4 |
6.609 |
9 |
Yes |
0.003 |
| Mid-Periphery versus Far Periphery | 414.5 | 205.1 | 209.4 | 53.26 | 4 | 4 | 5.561 | 9 | Yes | 0.0087 |
1-way ANOVA with Tukey analysis of Cell Density. Geographic spots or locations were defined as follows from left to right as illustrated in Figure 2A— “Macula” represents the first four images, left to right. The “mid–periphery” is defined as Images 5–8. The “Far periphery” represents all the remaining images: 9-through whatever remained. The data suggest that cells in the far periphery were less dense than those in the macula and mid-periphery.