. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Oct 11;45(6):1712–1722. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25507

Table 3. Comparison of qualitative measures of image quality between CUBE and CUBE-CS for each radiologists.

Measure of Image Quality	Grading Scale	Number of Patients
Measure of Image Quality	Grading Scale	Radiologist 1	Radiologist 2
SNR	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	3	3
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	47	47
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0
Tissue Contrast	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	3	5
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	47	45
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0
Clarity of Cartilage	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	25	22
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	25	28
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0
Clarity of Meniscus	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	9	10
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	41	40
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0
Clarity of Tendon	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	7	5
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	43	45
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0
Clarity of Muscle	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	15	18
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	35	32
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0
Conspicuity of Knee Joint Pathology	CUBE Slightly Better than CUBE-CS	9	9
	CUBE and CUBE-CS Identical	41	41
	CUBE-CS Slightly Better than CUBE	0	0

No grades of CUBE significantly better than CUBE-CS or CUBE-CS significantly better than CUBE were given to any qualitative measure of image quality.