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
Table 6 Mean HU values and objective image noise in region of interest placed in liver for standard of care filtered back projection and reduced dose iterative reconstruction techniques
| HU values | Objective image noise | ||
| Vendor A | SD FBP | 104 ± 30 | 17 ± 3 |
| RD A-1 | 93 ± 35 | 16 ± 4 | |
| RD A-2 | 97 ± 29 | 19 ± 4 | |
| RD A-3 | 98 ± 29 (P = 0.9) | 24 ± 5 (P < 0.001) | |
| Vendor B | SD FBP | 101 ± 28 | 26 ± 5 |
| RD B-1 | 100 ± 25 | 29 ± 5 | |
| RD B-2 | 98 ± 24 | 14 ± 3 | |
| RD B-3 | 107 ± 23 (P = 0.3) | 33 ± 11 (P < 0.001) | |
| Vendor C | SD FBP | 103 ± 28 | 23 ± 7 |
| RD C-1 | 97 ± 26 | 36 ± 18 | |
| RD C-2 | 97 ± 26 | 28 ± 14 | |
| RD C-3 | 98 ± 25 (P = 0.9) | 23 ± 11 (P = 0.016) |
- 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