Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

editorial

. 2006 Apr 14;12(14):2217–2222. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i4.2217

Table 2.

Comparison of regression models

Study	Formula	Mean ESLW (ESLV)	Difference in ESLW	P
Deland and North[11]	ESLW = 1020 × BSA¹ – 220	1 400.41 g	- 472.86 g	0.000^a
Heinemann[7]	ESLV = 1 072.8 × BSA¹ - 345.7	1 141.67 g (1358.59 mL)	- 214.12 g	0.000^a
Yoshizumi[17]	ESLW = 772 × BSA²	1 225.50 g	- 297.95 g	0.000^a
Yu[9]	ESLV = 21.585× BW(kg)^0.732 × BH(cm)^0.225	1 087.32 g (1293.91 mL)	- 159.77 g	0.000^a
Choukér[12]	ESLW = 452 + 16.434 × BW(kg) + 11.85 × age – 166 × gender (F=1, M=0)	1 690.90 g	- 763.35 g	0.000^a
Urata[4]	ESLV = 706.2 × BSA¹ + 2.4	944.79 g (1124.30 mL)	- 17.24 g	0.098
Vauthey[8]	ESLV = 1 267.28 × BSA² -794.41	1 022.95 g (1217.30 mL)	- 95.40 g	0.000^a
Lee[18]	ESLV = 691 × BSA¹ + 95	1 002.31 g (1192.75 mL)	- 74.76 g	0.000^a
Lin[10]	ESLV = BH × 13 + BW × 12 - 1530	1 048.85 g (1248.13 mL)	- 121.30 g	0.000^a
This study	ESLW = 218.32 + BW × 12.29 + gender × 50.74 (M=1, F=0)	927.47 g	7.60E-2	0.994
Calculated liver weight		927.54 g
Conversion factor 1.19 mL/g			paired samples t test ^aP < 0.05

ESLV: estimated standard liver volume; ESLW: estimated standard liver weight; BSA: body surface area; BW: body weight; BH: body height; F, female; M, male.

¹

DuBois and DuBois[5]

²

Mosteller[22]