Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Res. 2008 Nov;64(5):528–532. doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e318183f119

Table 1.

Comparison of correlation coefficient, regression slope and intercept, and group mean RCV per kg for pairs of methods for determining RCV.

RCV (mL/kg)
Pair-wise comparison of RBC
labeling methods		 N r Regression slope
(95% CI)* 		Regression Y-intercept
(95% CI)* 		125I-SA 14C Mean weight of
sheep (kg) (range)
125I-SA vs. 14C 23 0.95 0.95 (0.82 to 1.00) +48 (-43 to +139) 19.0 ± 4.1 18.4 ± 3.8 34.3 (10.9 – 65.9)
125I-SA vs. 51Cr 19 0.85 0.88 (0.69 to 1.06) +93 (-45 to +233) 19.3 ± 4.2 18.8 ± 3.9 36.6 (10.9 – 65.9)
FC vs. 125I-SA 8 0.96 1.11 (0.69 to 1.06) -2 (-143 to +139) 16.4 ± 2.6 15.1 ± 3.4 36.8 (18.6 – 65.9)
FC vs. 51Cr 6 0.97 1.09 (0.81 to 1.36) +0.3 (-186 to +186) 16.9 ± 2.9 15.6 ± 3.2 40.6 (18.6 – 65.9)
FC vs. 125I-SA 8 0.95 1.11 (0.86 to 1.37) -35 (-195 to +126) 15.9 ± 3.1 16.4 ± 2.6 36.8 (18.6 – 65.9)
*

Because all regression slope and Y-intercept confidence intervals include 1 and 0 respectively; none of the regression lines was significantly different from a line of identity.