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 B1Standard dose
Protocol A2
110 kVp
Protocol B2
CTDI in mGy
 Min.–max.6.40–7.341.25–4.9146.42–7.464.16–4.93(0.002*)(0.002*)
 Mean ± SD6.64 ± .401.95 ± 1.126.71 ± .464.58 ± .35
DLP in mGy (cm)
 Min.–Max.279.8–357.8463.05–240.17298.12–378.17142.01–253.72(0.002*)(0.002*)
 Mean ± SD323.91 ± 25.1697.43 ± 54,25339.78 ± 25.70213.31 ± 38.52
ED in mSv
 Min–max4.75–6.081.07–4.085.06–6.422.41–4.31(0.002*)(0.002*)
 Mean ± SD5.49 ± .4311.65 ± .925.77 ± .433.62 ± .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