Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Radiol. Jun 28, 2016; 8(6): 618-627
Published online Jun 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618
Published online Jun 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618
Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | P value | ||||
SD | RD | SD | RD | SD | RD | ||
CTDIvol (mGy) | 10 ± 3.4 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 10 ± 3.4 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 9 ± 5.3 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | < 0.001 |
DLP (mGy*cm) | 483 ± 187 | 64 ± 2 | 426 ± 204 | 61 ± 3 | 386 ± 259 | 61 ± 3 | < 0.001 |
Estimated effective dose (mSv) | 7 ± 3 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 6 ± 3 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 6 ± 4 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | < 0.001 |
- Citation: Padole A, Sainani N, Lira D, Khawaja RDA, Pourjabbar S, Lo Gullo R, Otrakji A, Kalra MK. Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors. World J Radiol 2016; 8(6): 618-627
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v8/i6/618.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618