Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Apr 24;42(6):1656–1665. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24929

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