Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 3;32(3):343–357. doi: 10.1007/s10334-018-0730-8

Table 3.

Comparison of image quality metrics (all segments averaged)

Metric PDw VISTA T1w VISTA SNAP
Technique p Valuea Technique p Valuea Technique p Valuea
Full CUSTOM + STEP Full CUSTOM + STEP Full CUSTOM + STEP
Fully sampled vs CUSTOM + STEP comparison
 Image quality (1–5) 3.7 ± 0.4 3.4 ± 0.4 0.031 3.2 ± 1.0 3.6 ± 0.3 0.62 2.7 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.3 0.031
 Wall depiction (1–3) 2.4 ± 0.2 2.3 ± 0.2 0.12 2.2 ± 0.5 2.3 ± 0.3 > 0.99
 CSF suppression (1–4) 3.0 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 0.2 0.031 3.1 ± 0.3 3.0 ± 0.2 0.19
 Blood suppression (1–3) 2.9 ± 0.1 2.8 ± 0.2 0.88 2.8 ± 0.3 2.9 ± 0.1 > 0.99 2.5 ± 0.4 2.6 ± 0.2 0.31
Metric PDw VISTA T1w VISTA SNAP
Technique p Valuea Technique p Valuea Technique p Valuea
SENSE CUSTOM + STEP SENSE CUSTOM + STEP SENSE CUSTOM + STEP
SENSE vs CUSTOM + STEP comparison
 Image quality (1–5) 3.0 ± 0.5 3.3 ± 0.2 0.19 2.7 ± 0.4 3.4 ± 0.1 0.031 2.0 ± 0.2 3.1 ± 0.4 0.031
 Wall depiction (1–3) 1.9 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.2 0.62 1.8 ± 0.3 2.2 ± 0.3 0.031
 CSF suppression (1–4) 3.0 ± 0.3 3.0 ± 0.2 0.75 3.3 ± 0.1 3.3 ± 0.1 0.56
 Blood suppression (1–3) 2.8 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.0 0.19 2.9 ± 0.1 3.0 ± 0.1 0.12 2.4 ± 0.4 2.8 ± 0.3 0.031
Metric PDw VISTA T1w VISTA SNAP
Technique p Valuea Technique p Valuea Technique p Valuea
CUSTOM + zero fill CUSTOM + STEP CUSTOM + zero fill CUSTOM + STEP CUSTOM + zero fill CUSTOM + STEP
CUSTOM + Zero fill vs CUSTOM + STEP comparison
 Image quality (1–5) 3.2 ± 0.6 3.7 ± 0.5 0.008 3.2 ± 0.6 4.0 ± 0.4 0.008 3.5 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 0.8 0.25
 Wall depiction (1–3) 2.1 ± 0.4 2.4 ± 0.3 0.008 2.3 ± 0.5 2.6 ± 0.3 0.016
 CSF suppression (1–4) 2.9 ± 0.4 3.0 ± 0.3 0.50 3.6 ± 0.3 3.6 ± 0.2 0.50
 Blood suppression (1–3) 2.9 ± 0.1 2.9 ± 0.1 > 0.99 2.9 ± 0.1 3.0 ± 0.0 > 0.99 2.7 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.3 0.50

Significant p-values shown in bold font

aWilcoxon signed-rank test