Effects of oral contrast on dose in abdominopelvic computed tomography with pure iterative reconstruction

Figure 1 Comparison of dose-length product measurements for all studies in the neutral and positive cohorts and by body mass index range. Group 1: BMI < 20 kg/m²; group 2: BMI 20-25 kg/m²; group 3: BMI 25-30 kg/m²; group 4: BMI > 30 kg/m². Significant differences are denoted by¹. BMI: Body mass index.

Figure 2 Comparison of size-specific dose estimated measurements for all studies in the neutral and positive cohorts and by body mass index range. Group 1: BMI < 20 kg/m²; group 2: BMI 20-25 kg/m²; group 3: BMI 25-30 kg/m²; group 4: BMI > 30 kg/m². Significant differences are denoted by¹. BMI: Body mass index.

Figure 3 Comparison of objective noise measurements between the neutral and positive studies. Level 1: Liver at the right hemi-diaphragm level; level 2: Liver at the porta hepatis; level 3: Right renal cortex at the renal hilum; level 4: Psoas muscle at the iliac crest; level 5: Gluteus maximus at the level of the acetabular roof. All neutral measurements were significantly superior. ROI: Regions of interest.

Figure 4 Comparison of objective signal to noise ratio measurements between the neutral and positive studies. Level 1: Liver at the right hemi-diaphragm level; level 2: Liver at the porta hepatis; level 3: Right renal cortex at the renal hilum; level 4: Psoas muscle at the iliac crest; level 5: Gluteus maximus at the level of the acetabular roof. All neutral measurements were significantly superior.

Figure 5 Comparison of median subjective image quality parameters for all neutral and positive studies. ¹All neutral measurements were significantly superior. SN: Subjective noise; CR: Contrast resolution; SR: Spatial resolution; DA: Diagnostic acceptability.