Table 4 Open in new tab Relationship... | Oxford Academic

Table 4

Open in new tab

Relationship between laboratory best-practice adherence and predicted patient effective dose of radiation

Best practice/factor	Reduction in predicted effective dose (mSv)	95% confidence interval	Standard error	P-Value
Avoid thallium stress	2.54	1.39 to 3.69	0.58	<0.001
Avoid dual isotope	5.42	3.77 to 7.06	0.84	<0.001
Avoid too much technetium	3.12	2.19 to 4.06	0.48	<0.001
Avoid too much thallium	1.05	−2.81 to 4.91	1.97	0.595
Perform stress-only imaging	2.28	1.57 to 2.98	0.36	<0.001
Use camera-based dose-reduction strategies	1.23	0.58 to 1.88	0.33	<0.001
Weight-based dosing for technetium	0.84	0.13 to 1.57	0.37	0.021
Avoid ‘shine through’	−1.03	−1.66 to −0.39	0.32	0.002
Age (years)	−0.004	−0.009 to 0.001	0.003	0.142
Female	0.30	0.18 to 0.43	0.06	<0.001
Weight (kg)	−0.04	−0.04 to −0.03	0.002	<0.001
Intercept (predicted effective dose, mSv)	20.5	16.5 to 24.5	2.05	<0.001

Best practice/factor	Reduction in predicted effective dose (mSv)	95% confidence interval	Standard error	P-Value
Avoid thallium stress	2.54	1.39 to 3.69	0.58	<0.001
Avoid dual isotope	5.42	3.77 to 7.06	0.84	<0.001
Avoid too much technetium	3.12	2.19 to 4.06	0.48	<0.001
Avoid too much thallium	1.05	−2.81 to 4.91	1.97	0.595
Perform stress-only imaging	2.28	1.57 to 2.98	0.36	<0.001
Use camera-based dose-reduction strategies	1.23	0.58 to 1.88	0.33	<0.001
Weight-based dosing for technetium	0.84	0.13 to 1.57	0.37	0.021
Avoid ‘shine through’	−1.03	−1.66 to −0.39	0.32	0.002
Age (years)	−0.004	−0.009 to 0.001	0.003	0.142
Female	0.30	0.18 to 0.43	0.06	<0.001
Weight (kg)	−0.04	−0.04 to −0.03	0.002	<0.001
Intercept (predicted effective dose, mSv)	20.5	16.5 to 24.5	2.05	<0.001

Results of the final hierarchical regression model.

Table 4

Open in new tab

Relationship between laboratory best-practice adherence and predicted patient effective dose of radiation

Best practice/factor	Reduction in predicted effective dose (mSv)	95% confidence interval	Standard error	P-Value
Avoid thallium stress	2.54	1.39 to 3.69	0.58	<0.001
Avoid dual isotope	5.42	3.77 to 7.06	0.84	<0.001
Avoid too much technetium	3.12	2.19 to 4.06	0.48	<0.001
Avoid too much thallium	1.05	−2.81 to 4.91	1.97	0.595
Perform stress-only imaging	2.28	1.57 to 2.98	0.36	<0.001
Use camera-based dose-reduction strategies	1.23	0.58 to 1.88	0.33	<0.001
Weight-based dosing for technetium	0.84	0.13 to 1.57	0.37	0.021
Avoid ‘shine through’	−1.03	−1.66 to −0.39	0.32	0.002
Age (years)	−0.004	−0.009 to 0.001	0.003	0.142
Female	0.30	0.18 to 0.43	0.06	<0.001
Weight (kg)	−0.04	−0.04 to −0.03	0.002	<0.001
Intercept (predicted effective dose, mSv)	20.5	16.5 to 24.5	2.05	<0.001

Best practice/factor	Reduction in predicted effective dose (mSv)	95% confidence interval	Standard error	P-Value
Avoid thallium stress	2.54	1.39 to 3.69	0.58	<0.001
Avoid dual isotope	5.42	3.77 to 7.06	0.84	<0.001
Avoid too much technetium	3.12	2.19 to 4.06	0.48	<0.001
Avoid too much thallium	1.05	−2.81 to 4.91	1.97	0.595
Perform stress-only imaging	2.28	1.57 to 2.98	0.36	<0.001
Use camera-based dose-reduction strategies	1.23	0.58 to 1.88	0.33	<0.001
Weight-based dosing for technetium	0.84	0.13 to 1.57	0.37	0.021
Avoid ‘shine through’	−1.03	−1.66 to −0.39	0.32	0.002
Age (years)	−0.004	−0.009 to 0.001	0.003	0.142
Female	0.30	0.18 to 0.43	0.06	<0.001
Weight (kg)	−0.04	−0.04 to −0.03	0.002	<0.001
Intercept (predicted effective dose, mSv)	20.5	16.5 to 24.5	2.05	<0.001

Results of the final hierarchical regression model.