. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 8.

Published in final edited form as: Hemodial Int. 2015 Aug 5;20(1):120–128. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12338

Tab. 4.

Comparison of techniques (n=26)

Y	X	β₀	p(β₀)	β₁	p(β₁)	r²
V_p	RPV_H	−4.54	<0.001^*	0.08	<0.0001^*	0.27
RPV_p	RPV_H	2.11	0.89	0.98	<0.0001^*	0.32
RPV_p-	(RPV_p+RPV_H)/2	-	<0.0001^*	0.67	<0.0001^*	0.33
RPV_H		62.87
		-	<0.0001^*	1.54		1.00
RPV_H	RBV_H	54.00			<0.0001^*
		-	<0.0001^*	1.52		0.99
RPV_sim	RBV_sim	52.61			<0.0001^*

different from zero

Abbreviations: Y, dependent variable; X, independent variable; β₀, β₁, intercept and slope of linear regression; p(β₀), p(β₁), probability to reject the null-hypothesis for β₀ or β₁; r², regression coefficient; V_p, absolute plasma volume; RPV_H, relative plasma volume derived from hematocrit (see Eq. 4); RPV_p, relative plasma volume derived from plasma volumes (see Eq. 6); RBV_H, relative blood volume derived from hematocrit; RPV_sim, relative plasma volume derived from simulated hematocrit data; RBV_sim, relative blood volume derived from simulated hematocrit data