Table 4.

Precision results with 760 catheters and four user tries. The more conservative %CV_RMS is 20–40% higher than its non-RMS counterpart $\overline{\%CV}$. The same holds for the estimated deviations in mm. Significantly lower %CV precision errors were found in proposed method (p < 0.006).

Method	$\overline{HD}$	$\overline{\%CV}$	${\stackrel{\sim }{D}}_{\overline{\%CV}}$	%CVRMS	D̃CVRMS	$\overline{HD}+3·{\stackrel{\sim }{D}}_{C{V}_{\mathit{RMS}}}$
Proposed	1.57 mm	15.84 %	0.25 mm	18.66 %	0.29 mm	2.44 mm
Comparison (Pernelle et al., 2013)	2.37 mm	23.08 %	0.55 mm	27.89 %	0.66 mm	4.35 mm