Table 3.

Comparison of subjective image data

		Score			Comparison (P value)
		UL-MBIR	L-ASIR	UL-ASIR	UL-MBIR vs. L-ASIR	UL-MBIR vs. UL-ASIR	L-ASIR vs. UL-ASIR
Noise (1/2/3/4/5)	Reader 1	0/1/81/3/0	0/0/64/21/0	0/0/3/81/1	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
	Reader 2	1/5/55/24/0	0/0/7/76/2	0/0/1/10/74	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Streak artifact (1/2/3)	Reader 1	73/12/0	40/45/0	25/56/4	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.014*
	Reader 2	24/60/1	1/74/10	1/4/80	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Pixelated blotchy appearance (1/2/3)	Reader 1	4/74/7	84/1/0	83/1/1	<0.001*	<0.001*	1.000
	Reader 2	0/19/66	83/1/1	84/1/0	<0.001*	<0.001*	1.000
Depiction of ureter (1/2/3/4)	Reader 1	15/41/26/3	10/48/25/2	3/32/43/7	1.000	<0.001*	<0.001*
	Reader 2	39/25/13/8	42/21/16/6	14/29/34/8	0.210	<0.001*	<0.001*
Diagnostic acceptability (1/2/3/4)	Reader 1	0/11/73/1	0/14/70/1	0/0/57/28	0.648	<0.001*	<0.001*
	Reader 2	29/30/19/7	31/30/14/10	1/2/19/63	0.775	<0.001*	<0.001*

For comparison, sign test was performed.

*p<0.016.