Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Radiol. May 28, 2014; 6(5): 210-217
Published online May 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i5.210
Published online May 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i5.210
Table 2 Difference in diameters (cm) among female and male as well as different weight groups are shown in this table
| AP (transverse images) | Lat (transverse images) | AP (localizer) | Lat (localizer) | |
| Female | 25.5 ± 3.6 (18.1-31.3) | 37.0 ± 4.5 (29.4-46.9) | 27.4 ± 4.6 (19.9-36.1) | 39.1 ± 5.6 (27.8-48.0) |
| Male | 28.2 ± 4.0 (23.0-40.9) | 37.7 ± 3.9 (30.1-46.2) | 30.4 ± 4.9 (22.7-46.2) | 40.0 ± 5.4 (29.2-49.8) |
| P value | < 0.0100 | 0.2000 | < 0.0100 | 0.2000 |
| < 90 kg | 24.4 ± 2.4 (18.1-29.9) | 34.4 ± 2.8 (28.8-40.7) | 26.0 ± 3.0 (18.1-32.9) | 36.0 ± 4.2 (27.8-46.6) |
| ≥ 90 kg | 29.7 ± 3.4 (26.0-40.8) | 39.6 ± 2.7 (35.7-44.9) | 32.3 ± 4.2 (27.0-48.7) | 42.4 ± 3.3 (35.5-46.2) |
| P value | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 |
- Citation: Pourjabbar S, Singh S, Padole A, Saini A, Blake MA, Kalra MK. Size-specific dose estimates: Localizer or transverse abdominal computed tomography images? World J Radiol 2014; 6(5): 210-217
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v6/i5/210.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i5.210