Table 3.

Results of report quality ratings FTR versus SR

Questions	Rater 1		p value	Rater 2		p value
	FTR	SR		FTR	SR
1. The report is clear	8.05 ± 0.51	9.05 ± 0.22	< 0.001*	6.80 ± 1.28	8.30 ± 0.66	< 0.001*
2. The report is clearly comprehensible	8.50 ± 0.61	9.10 ± 0.44	0.001*	7.35 ± 0.81	8.20 ± 0.83	0.001*
3. The report has an appropriate length	8.60 ± 0.50	8.40 ± 0.60	0.293	7.80 ± 1.36	5.75 ± 0.97	< 0.001*
4. The report allows to extract relevant findings easily	7.80 ± 0.60	8.95 ± 0.22	< 0.001*	7.05 ± 1.10	7.80 ± 0.83	0.016*
5. The structure of the report helps in finding relevant information quickly	7.60 ± 0.60	9.10 ± 0.31	< 0.001*	7.10 ± 0.97	8.05 ± 0.89	0.005*
6. The report contains all relevant information	8.60 ± 0.75	8.90 ± 0.56	0.113	6.80 ± 1.58	7.95 ± 1.05	0.009*
7. The report allows an explanation of the patient’s clinical symptoms	8.45 ± 0.69	9.00 ± 0.32	0.003*	7.30 ± 1.38	7.50 ± 0.51	0.881
8. The report contains all information necessary for subsequent patient management	7.90 ± 0.79	8.85 ± 0.37	< 0.001*	6.65 ± 1.42	8.60 ± 0.82	< 0.001*
9. I have no open questions, a further consultation with the radiologist is not necessary	8.55 ± 0.76	9.00 ± 0.32	< 0.001*	6.25 ± 1.45	6.75 ± 1.74	0.386
10. The report explains the MR images well	8.35 ± 0.74	9.05 ± 0.39	0.020*	7.10 ± 0.93	7.95 ± 0.75	0.003*
11. Please evaluate the overall quality of the report on a scale from 1 to 5	3.80 ± 0.41	4.0 ± 0.00	0.037*	3.60 ± 0.50	3.85 ± 0.49	0.127
12. Favored report type [%; n]	15 (3/20)	85 (17/20)	NA	45 (9/20)	55 (11/20)	NA

Results are depicted as mean values with standard deviation for Questions 1 to 11 and as percentage for question 12

Significance was assumed if p < 0.05 and highlighted by using italics

FTR free text report, SR structured report, NA not applicable

^*p < 0.05