Table 2.
Scores from both readers (1 = worst, 5 = best) for image quality (IQ), conspicuity of fibroglandular tissue from fat (FG), and degree of fat suppression (FS), expressed as mean ± standard deviation (first row) and median [25th percentile; 75th percentile] (second row).
| Comparison 1: Pre-FS images | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reader 1
|
Reader 2
|
κ
|
||||||
| VIBE | RAVE | p-value | VIBE | RAVE | p-value | VIBE | RAVE | |
| IQ | 3.67±0.64 | 3.63±0.58 | 1.000 | 3.67±0.76 | 3.50±0.72 | 0.348 | 0.294 | 0.161 |
| 4 [3;4] | 4 [3;4] | 4 [3;4] | 4 [3;4] | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| FG | 3.88±0.54 | 4.00±0.66 | 0.432 | 3.83±0.64 | 4.46±0.66 | 0.011 | 0.485 | 0.284 |
| 4 [4;4] | 4 [4;4] | 4 [3;4] | 5 [4;5] | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| FS | 3.88±0.68 | 4.58±0.58 | <0.001 | 3.46±0.83 | 3.92±0.58 | 0.033 | 0.250 | −0.008 |
| 4 [4;4] | 5 [4;5] | 4 [3;4] | 4 [4;4] | |||||
| Comparison 2: Pre-NFS images | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reader 1
|
Reader 2
|
κ
|
||||||
| VIBE | RAVE | p-value | VIBE | RAVE | p-value | VIBE | RAVE | |
| IQ | 3.88±0.34 | 3.79±0.41 | 0.688 | 3.88±0.54 | 3.29±0.62 | 0.005 | 0.086 | 0.111 |
| 4 [4;4] | 4 [4;4] | 4 [4;4] | 3 [3;4] | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| FG | 4.50±0.66 | 4.21±0.51 | 0.092 | 4.00±0.66 | 3.75±0.61 | 0.241 | −0.062 | 0.152 |
| 5 [4;5] | 4 [4;4.5] | 4 [4;4] | 4 [3;4] | |||||
| Comparison 3: Dyn-FS images | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reader 1
|
Reader 2
|
κ
|
||||||
| VIBE | RAVE | p-value | VIBE | RAVE | p-value | VIBE | RAVE | |
| IQ | 3.83±0.64 | 3.17±0.38 | <0.001 | 3.50±0.78 | 2.96±0.55 | 0.011 | 0.371 | 0.160 |
| 4 [3;4] | 3 [3;3] | 3 [3;4] | 3 [3;3] | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| FG | 4.08±0.65 | 3.75±0.44 | 0.093 | 3.63±0.71 | 4.04±0.62 | 0.037 | 0.333 | 0.154 |
| 4 [4;4.5] | 4 [3.5;4] | 3.5 [3;4] | 4 [4;4] | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| FS | 3.75±0.53 | 4.42±0.65 | <0.001 | 3.17±0.82 | 3.79±0.51 | 0.006 | 0.139 | 0.211 |
| 4 [4;4] | 4.5 [4;5] | 3 [3;4] | 4 [3.5;4] | |||||
For each category, agreement between the two readers is expressed with the κ-values. Results are shown for all three performed comparisons. The technique with the higher score for each category is highlighted in bold. Statistical significant differences (p < 0.05) are underscored.