HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kim, M.-J. Articles by Kim, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kim, M.-J. Articles by Kim, J. H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Variation of the Time to Aortic Enhancement of Fixed-Duration Versus Fixed-Rate Injection Protocols

¹ Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Severance Hospital and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seodaemun-ku Shinchon-dong 134, Seoul 120-752, Republic of Korea.
² Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science and Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 120-752, Republic of Korea.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1A —Box-and-whisker plots show median (middle line of box), quartiles (top and bottom lines of box), upper extreme value (upper whisker), and lower extreme value (lower whisker) for aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time. Both aortic arrival time (A) and 100-H threshold time (B) showed smaller variation in group 2, but range was substantially large in all groups. Mean aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times were comparable for all groups. Values above horizontal lines are p values for each comparison of mean values.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1B —Box-and-whisker plots show median (middle line of box), quartiles (top and bottom lines of box), upper extreme value (upper whisker), and lower extreme value (lower whisker) for aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time. Both aortic arrival time (A) and 100-H threshold time (B) showed smaller variation in group 2, but range was substantially large in all groups. Mean aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times were comparable for all groups. Values above horizontal lines are p values for each comparison of mean values.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2A —Relationship between aortic arrival times and body weight. Scatterplots show relationship between aortic arrival times and body weight in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Aortic arrival times showed no significant correlation with body weight in all groups, but range of variation is shorter in group 2 (B).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2B —Relationship between aortic arrival times and body weight. Scatterplots show relationship between aortic arrival times and body weight in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Aortic arrival times showed no significant correlation with body weight in all groups, but range of variation is shorter in group 2 (B).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2C —Relationship between aortic arrival times and body weight. Scatterplots show relationship between aortic arrival times and body weight in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Aortic arrival times showed no significant correlation with body weight in all groups, but range of variation is shorter in group 2 (B).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3A —Relationship between 100-H threshold time and body weight. Scatterplots show relationship between 100-H threshold times and body weight in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C); 100-H threshold times showed no significant correlation with body weight in all groups, but range of variation is shorter in group 2 (B).

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3B —Relationship between 100-H threshold time and body weight. Scatterplots show relationship between 100-H threshold times and body weight in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C); 100-H threshold times showed no significant correlation with body weight in all groups, but range of variation is shorter in group 2 (B).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3C —Relationship between 100-H threshold time and body weight. Scatterplots show relationship between 100-H threshold times and body weight in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C); 100-H threshold times showed no significant correlation with body weight in all groups, but range of variation is shorter in group 2 (B).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4A —Relationship between aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time. Scatterplots show relationship between aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times showed strong positive correlation with each other for all groups.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4B —Relationship between aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time. Scatterplots show relationship between aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times showed strong positive correlation with each other for all groups.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4C —Relationship between aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time. Scatterplots show relationship between aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times in groups 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times showed strong positive correlation with each other for all groups.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati