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