Skip to main content

Table 2 Descriptive analysis of the studied cases according to CTDI in mGy, DLP in mGy-cm and ED in mSv

From: Reduced dose iterative reconstruction versus standard dose filtered back projection in detection of bladder tumors

 

Weight ≤ 80 kg (n = 10)

Weight > 80 kg (n = 11)

P value

(A1 vs. B1)

P value

(A2 vs. B2)

Standard dose

Protocol A1

80 kVp Protocol B1

Standard dose

Protocol A2

110 kVp

Protocol B2

CTDI in mGy

 Min.–max.

6.40–7.34

1.25–4.914

6.42–7.46

4.16–4.93

(0.002*)

(0.002*)

 Mean ± SD

6.64 ± .40

1.95 ± 1.12

6.71 ± .46

4.58 ± .35

DLP in mGy (cm)

 Min.–Max.

279.8–357.84

63.05–240.17

298.12–378.17

142.01–253.72

(0.002*)

(0.002*)

 Mean ± SD

323.91 ± 25.16

97.43 ± 54,25

339.78 ± 25.70

213.31 ± 38.52

ED in mSv

 Min–max

4.75–6.08

1.07–4.08

5.06–6.42

2.41–4.31

(0.002*)

(0.002*)

 Mean ± SD

5.49 ± .431

1.65 ± .92

5.77 ± .43

3.62 ± .65

  1. P values for Wilcoxon signed ranks test for comparing between standard FBP and low dose with IR
  2. *Statisticallysignificant at P ≤ 0.05