Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of the clarity levels of the five-line sign derived from different algorithms using 16-slice and 256-slice CT

From: Comparison of the rebuilding effects of different computed tomography scanners and reconstructive settings for the five-line sign in normal interlobular fissures

Method Number of sites M (P25, P75)
   16-slice 256-slice
HRA 300 1.00 (1.00, 1.00)a,g,i 1.00 (1.00, 1.00)d,h,j
HROA 300 2.00 (1.00, 2.00)b 2.00 (1.00, 2.00)e
SAA 300 2.00 (1.00, 2.00)c 2.00 (1.00, 3.00)f
SOA 300 3.00 (2.00, 3.00) 3.00 (2.00, 3.00)
Sum 1200 2.00 (1.00, 3.00) 2.00 (1.00, 3.00)
H 548.621 531.787
p < 0.001 < 0.001
  1. CT computed tomography, HRA high resolution axial algorithm, HROA high resolution oblique algorithm, SAA standard axial algorithm, SOA standard oblique algorithm. Comparison of HRA, HRO, and SAA with SOA: the U values of a2541.50, b14478.00, c18292.50, d2870.00, e16537.00, and f19508.50, respectively. Comparison of HRA and SAA: the U values of g25832.00 and h25141.50, respectively. Comparison of HRA and HRO: the U values of i20910.00 and j21283.00, respectively. The p value was < 0.001 for all statistical analyses
  2. M (P25, P75) represents median (25th percentile, 75th percentile)
  3. H in the stub represents the statistic value obtained from formula Kruskal-Wallis test. It is equivalent to the chi square value obtained by chi square test