Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 14;19(4):692–703. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.692

Table 5. Pearson Correlation Coefficients (R) between Radiation Dose Parameters and Image Quality Parameters.

Slice Thickness-Normalized Image Noise SNR CNR Subjective Image Quality Grade
CTDIvol before CT scan
 Group 1 0.52 (p = 0.0004) 0.22 (p = 0.2) 0.17 (p = 0.3) 0.32 (p = 0.04)
 Group 2 0.37 (p = 0.02) 0.01 (p = 0.9) 0.06 (p = 0.7) 0.19 (p = 0.2)
CTDIvol after CT scan
 Group 1 0.49 (p = 0.001) 0.21 (p = 0.2) 0.16 (p = 0.3) 0.30 (p = 0.051)
 Group 2 0.20 (p = 0.2) 0.22 (p = 0.2) 0.26 (p = 0.1) 0.06 (p = 0.7)
Effective mAs
 Group 1 0.49 (p < 0.0001) 0.21 (p = 0.2) 0.16 (p = 0.3) 0.30 (p = 0.054)
 Group 2 0.20 (p = 0.2) 0.23 (p = 0.2) 0.26 (p = 0.1) 0.06 (p = 0.7)
Quality reference mAs
 Group 1 0.04 (p = 0.8) 0.04 (p = 0.8) 0.01 (p = 0.9) 0.09 (p = 0.6)
 Group 2 0.05 (p = 0.8) 0.24 (p = 0.1) 0.23 (p = 0.1) 0.24 (p = 0.1)