Skip to main content
. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0203682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203682

Table 2. Dose report and comparison for different kV settings.

Scan parameter
High pitch (n = 81) Overall 70 kV 80 kV 90 kV p-value
Effective tube current (mAs) 505 ± 91 462 ±98 539 ± 67 539 ± 79 0.001
CTDIvol (mGy) 2.2 ± 1.0 1.3 ± 0.3 2.5 ± 0.3 3.8 ± 0.6 <0.001
DLP (mGy*cm) 72 ± 24 51 ± 8 80 ± 8 111 ± 16 <0.001
Effective dose (mSv) 0.7 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2 <0.001
AS (n = 33)
Effective tube current (mAs) 347 ± 71 336 ± 79 396 ± 26 346 ± 15 0.237
CTDIvol (mGy) 10.6 ± 5.1 8.2 ± 2.4 14.3 ± 2.6 20.9 ± 3.4 <0.001
DLP (mGy*cm) 171 ± 75 135 ± 33 238 ± 53 309 ± 63 <0.001
Effective dose (mSv) 3.3 ± 1.9 2.5 ± 0.9 5.1 ± 2.7 5.8 ± 2.1 0.002

Note–Values are presented as means ± standard deviation.

High pitch = prospective ‘high pitch’ scan protocol; AS = prospective ‘adaptive sequence’ scan protocol; CTDI = CT dose index; DLP = dose length product.

Kruskal-Wallis test showed significance between kV settings.