Retrospective Study
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
Table 3 Size specific dose estimate ratio to computed tomography dose index volume on localizer radiograph and transverse computed tomography images is tabulated on this table
DAP
DL
DSum
DEff
RangeMeanRangeMeanRangeMeanRangeMean
Localizer radiograph
Average0.20, 0.460.06 ± 0.14-0.17, 0.550.12 ± 0.18-0.26, 0.500.04 ± 0.17-0.25, 0.470.04 ± 0.16
Maximum-0.32, 0.01-0.21 ± 0.08-0.13, 0.500.08 ± 0.17-0.28, 0.270.01 ± 0.16-0.30, 0.430.00 ± 0.16
Minimum-0.26, 0.11-0.11 ± 0.09-0.17, 0.650.26 ± 0.23-0.27, 0.260.03 ± 0.19-0.27, 0.590.04 ± 0.19
Mid location-0.30, 0.08-0.15 ± 0.10-0.17, 0.690.13 ± 0.23-0.22, 0.560.16 ± 0.23-0.20, 0.640.12 ± 0.17
Transverse computed tomography images
Average-0.23, 0.590.13 ± 0.14-0.13, 0.500.15 ± 0.16-0.27, 0.500.11 ± 0.15-0.26, 0.530.11 ± 0.15
Maximum-0.25, 0.670.18 ± 0.19-0.13, 0.500.08 ± 0.16-0.17, 0.590.08 ± 0.15-0.29, 0.530.10 ± 0.17
Minimum-0.16, 0.660.13 ± 0.16-0.06, 0.700.31 ± 0.19-0.20, 0.610.11 ± 0.17-0.14, 0.590.16 ± 0.15
Mid location-0.25, 0.74-0.10 ± 0.17-0.17, 0.550.19 ± 0.20-0.12, 0.560.16 ± 0.14-0.19, 0.640.10 ± 0.23