Table 1.

Randomized sampling and adjusted/unadjusted area versus standard method with automated analysis.

	New, randomized sampling		Standard1	% mean difference
	Adjusted area (mean ± SD)	Unadjusted area (mean ± SD)	(Mean ± SD)	Adjusted area vs standard method	Unadjusted area vs standard method
Control (n = 26)
CNFD no./mm2	33.7 ± 5.6	25.1 ± 4.88	31.3 ± 6.5	7.7%	− 0.2%*
CNFL mm/mm2	20.5 ± 3.5	15.2 ± 2.87	17.7 ± 2.8	15.8%*	− 0.1%*
CNBD no./mm2	44.3 ± 18	33.3 ± 14.2	44.6 ± 17	− 0.7%	− 0.3%*
DSPN( −) (n = 45)
CNFD no./mm2	28.2 ± 9.3	20.4 ± 1.13	22.6 ± 7.3	24.8%*	− 0.1%*
CNFL mm/mm2	17.0 ± 4.2	12.2 ± 0.524	13.4 ± 3.3	26.9%*	− 0.1%*
CNBD no./mm2	31.1 ± 18	22.5 ± 2.06	26.2 ± 15	18.7%*	− 0.1%*
DSPN( +) (n = 17)
CNFD no./mm2	17.3 ± 12	11.4 ± 9.11	13.5 ± 9.1	28.1%*	− 0.2%^
CNFL mm/mm2	12.3 ± 6.8	7.92 ± 4.64	8.8 ± 4.7	39.8%*	− 0.1%*
CNBD no./mm2	19.1 ± 14	12.4 ± 9.64	15.4 ± 12	24.0%^	− 0.2%^

Standard method from Chen et al.¹ significantly larger values using the new randomized and adjusted area method compared to the standard method (except for CNFD and CNBD in the control group). Smaller values using the new randomized, but unadjusted area method compared to standard. The differences are statistically but not clinically significant.

Statistically significant differences are marked in bold, *p < 0.001; ^p < 0.05.