Table 3.

Results of the image quality assessment, comparing bilateral DWI with rFOV DWI rated by three observers

Image Quality	Reader 1		Reader 2		Reader 3
	Bilateral DWI	rFOV DWI	Bilateral DWI	rFOV DWI	Bilateral DWI	rFOV DWI
Sharpness
1=unsharp	5	0	0	1	4	1
2=somewhat unsharp	15	2	21	4	17	9
3=moderately sharp	1	10	0	7	0	4
4=sharp	0	7	0	9	0	5
5=very sharp	0	2	0	0	0	2
	P<0.001		P<0.001		P=0.002
Artifacts/ghosting
0=no artifacts	4	13	3	1	6	12
1=some, but interpretable	14	8	11	15	10	8
2=severe, but interpretable	3	0	5	5	4	1
3=severe, interpretation problems	0	0	2	0	1	0
	P=0.003		P=0.614		P=0.056
Distortions
0=no distortions	8	17	6	7	16	21
1=some, but interpretable	12	4	14	12	4	0
2=severe, but interpretable	1	0	1	2	1	0
3=severe, interpretation problems	0	0	0	0	0	0
	P=0.004		P=1.00		P=0.034
Perceived signal to noise
1=poor	2	1	0	0	0	0
2=acceptable	11	2	7	13	6	2
3=good	7	11	14	8	15	11
4=excellent	1	7	0	0	0	8
	P<0.001		P=0.058		P=0.005
Fat suppression
1=failed	0	0	0	0	1	0
2=poor	1	0	3	0	1	0
3=acceptable	7	4	12	15	7	0
4=good	13	17	6	6	12	12
5=excellent	0	0	0	0	0	9
	P=0.059		P=0.417		P=0.002

^*P<0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test

Abbreviations: DWI: diffusion-weighted imaging; rFOV: reduced field of view