Skip to main content
. 2017 May 19;18(4):722–728. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.722

Table 2. In-Vivo Bilateral Paired Injection Comparison of Mean Radiation Dose and Image Quality.

Protocol 1 vs. 4 P Protocol 3 vs. 4 P
AK/frame (mGy) 6.30 ± 1.70 vs. 2.97 ± 0.66 < 0.001 2.55 ± 0.78 vs. 2.40 ± 0.37 0.83
DAP/frame (mGycm2) 2272.88 ± 609.12 vs. 1028.88 ± 169.04 0.0027 923.37 ± 136.64 vs. 859.06 ± 77.95 0.21
Image quality: overall 5.60 ± 1.76 vs. 5.90 ± 1.88
(4.76 ± 1.76 vs. 5.07 ± 1.88)		 0.66
(0.66)		 6.07 ± 1.37 vs. 6.33 ± 1.15
(5.23 ± 1.37 vs. 5.50 ± 1.15)		 0.51
(0.51)
Contrast 5.10 ± 1.59 vs. 5.76 ± 1.87
(5.26 ± 1.59 vs. 5.93 ± 1.87)		 0.32
(0.32)		 5.97 ± 1.45 vs. 6.55 ± 0.98
(6.13 ± 1.45 vs. 6.72 ± 0.98)		 0.14
(0.14)
Sharpness 5.52 ± 1.75 vs. 5.90 ± 1.76
(5.19 ± 1.75 vs. 5.90 ± 1.76)		 0.57
(0.29)		 5.97 ± 1.45 vs. 6.22 ± 1.21
(5.63 ± 1.45 vs. 5.88 ± 1.21)		 0.56
(0.56)
Noise 5.67 ± 1.56 vs. 6.02 ± 1.44
(5.33 ± 1.56 vs. 5.69 ± 1.44)		 0.54
(0.54)		 6.13 ± 1.05 vs. 6.45 ± 1.05
(5.80 ± 1.05 vs. 6.12 ± 1.05)		 0.35
(0.35)

Adjusted image quality scores in parentheses. AK = air kerma, DAP = dose area product