Table 4.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and 3T¹

	Labral tear(n)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Acetabular cartilage defect (n)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Cartilage delamination (n)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
Reader 1 MRA
AS quadrant	32	82	n/a	21	55*	100	5	42	82
PS quadrant	1	25	97	1	14	100	0	0	97
Reader 2 MRA
AS quadrant	31	79	n/a	17	45*	100	3	25	89
PS quadrant	1	25	94	1	20	97	0	0	97
Reader 1 3T
AS quadrant	36	92	n/a	30	79*	100	4	33	78
PS quadrant	3	75	89	2	29	78	0	0	97
AI quadrant	n/a	n/a	97	0	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	100
Reader 2 3T
AS quadrant	35	90	n/a	27	71*	100	4	33	74
PS quadrant	1	25	89	3	43	81	0	0	97
AI quadrant	n/a	n/a	90	0	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	100

AS anterosuperior, PS posterosuperior, AI anteroinferior, PI posteroinferior

*Statistically significant difference between MRA and 3T (p=0.02)

¹No MRI pathology was recorded in the AI and PI quadrants at MRA. No MRI pathology was recorded in the PI quadrant at 3T