Table 1.

Image quality criteria scores. The results of the maximum (5) score for FFDM and CESM in percentages and the median scores for FFDM and CESM are presented

Image quality criteria (N = 147)	FFDM 5 score	LE 5 score	McNemar p-value	Median FFDM	Median CESM	Wilcoxon p-value
Is there a good visualization of the skin line?	93.2 %	97.3 %	0.109	5	5	0.058
Are the vascular structures visible through the dense parenchyma?	98.6 %	100.0 %	0.475	5	5	0.18
Is there a sharp visualization of the pectoral muscle?	40.8 %	21.1 %	<0.0001**	4	4	<0.0001**
Is there a good visualization of the Cooper’s ligaments and vascular structures in the subcutaneous and prepectoral area?	99.3 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	0.317
Are the micro-calcifications visualized and well outlined?*	95.0 %	100.0 %	0.042**	5	5	0.02**
Is there sufficient contrast in the dark areas?	99.3 %	98.6 %	1	5	5	0.564
Is there sufficient contrast in the white areas?	99.3 %	97.3 %	0.25	5	5	0.317
Is the glandular tissue sufficiently white?	100.0 %	99.3 %	1	5	5	0.317
Is the background sufficiently dark?	100.0 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	1
Do all images appear in the same way?	99.3 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	0.317
Is there disturbing noise in the dark areas?	100.0 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	1
Is there disturbing noise in the white areas?	99.3 %	99.3 %	1	5	5	0.317
Are there any artefacts?	99.3 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	0.317
Contrast in the white regions?	99.3 %	98.0 %	0.5	5	5	0.564
Contrast in the dark regions?	100.0 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	1
Overall contrast of the images?	99.3 %	98.6 %	1	5	5	0.317
Sharpness of the images?	100.0 %	100.0 %	1	5	5	1
How satisfied are you with the representation of micro-calcifications?*	95.3 %	100.0 %	0.074	5	5	0.034**
How satisfied are you with the representation of opacities?	100.0 %	99.3 %	1	5	5	0.317
How satisfied are you with the representation of the image?	97.3 %	96.6 %	1	5	5	0.655

* for n = 120 cases

** statistically significant

FFDM full-field digital mammography, CESM contrast-enhanced spectral mammography