Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of the clarity level of the five-line sign derived from 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 Unit Clarity level Sum X2 p
1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%)
HRA 16-slice 253 (84.3) 44 (14.7) 3 (1.0) 300 3.514 0.173
256-slice 268 (89.3) 29 (9.7) 3 (1.0) 300
HRO 16-slice 96 (32.0) 168 (56.0) 36 (12.0) 300 10.736a 0.005
256-slice 114 (38.0) 130 (43.3) 56 (18.7) 300
SAA 16-slice 135 (45.0) 92 (30.7) 73 (24.3) 300 3.189 0.203
256-slice 143 (47.7) 73 (24.3) 84 (28.0) 300
SOA 16-slice 0 (0.0) 89 (29.7) 211 (70.3) 300 10.863b 0.004
256-slice 8 (2.7) 69 (23.0) 223 (74.3) 300
  1. CT computed tomography, HRA high resolution axial algorithm, HROA high resolution oblique algorithm, SAA standard axial algorithm, SOA standard oblique algorithm
  2. aRate of clarity level 3 (16-slice versus 256-slice CT): χ2 = 5.135, p = 0.023
  3. bRate of clarity level 3 plus level 2 (16-slice versus 256-slice CT): χ2 = 6.208, p = 0.013