Skip to main content
. 2017 Oct 15;9(10):423–430. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i10.423

Table 2.

Comparison of Dose-Length Product and Volumetric Computed Tomographic Dose Index obtained with standard-dose and low-dose protocols in all patients (n = 51) and according to weight (kg)

BMI groups No. of patients CTDIvol (mGy)
DLP (mGy*cm)
% DLP reduction
Standard-dose Low-dose P-value Standard-dose Low-dose P-value
Group A (41-60 kg) 8 14.1 ± 0.0 9.8 ± 1.5 0.012 891.9 ± 36.3 627.5 ± 92.9 0.012 29.6
Group B (61-80 kg) 25 21.1 ± 0.0 14.0 ± 2.8 < 0.001 1386.6 ± 65.9 920.0 ± 175.0 < 0.001 33.5
Group C (81-90 kg) 13 24.6 ± 0.0 17.2 ± 2.9 0.001 1656.8 ± 61.2 1162.6 ± 204.2 0.001 29.9
Group D ( > 90 kg) 5 27.4 ± 1.5 26.5 ± 5.4 0.5 1910.4 ± 147.6 1835.1 ± 359.5 0.5 2.5
All patients 51 21.4 ± 4.0 15.4 ± 5.2 < 0.001 1429.2 ± 297.7 1025.6 ± 370.9 < 0.001 28.9

DLP: Dose-Length-Product; CTDIvol: Volumetric Computed Tomographic Dose Index.