Table 2.

Cross table, sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), likelihood ratio (LR) and diagnostic accuracy

Erosions	CT+	CT−	Diagnostic accuracy			Likelihood ratio		Intermodality
T1+	28	7	SE	73.68%	56.9%–86.6%	LR−	0.28	Agreement	87.5%
T1−	10	91	SP	92.86%	85.84%–97.08%	LR+	10.32	Cohen’s k	0.682	0.54–0.82
SWI+	31	3	SE	81.58%	65.67%–92.26%	LR−	0.19	Agreement	92.6%
SWI−	7	95	SP	96.94%	91.31%–99.36%	LR+	26.65	Cohen’s k	0.811	0.7–0.92
Sclerosis	CT+	CT−
T1+	16	0	SE	23.88%	14.31%–35.86%	LR−	0.76	Agreement	62.5%
T1−	51	69	SP	100.0%	94.79%–100.0%	LR+		Cohen’s k	0.241	0.13–0.35
SWI+	50	5	SE	74.63%	62.51%–84.47%	LR−	0.27	Agreement	84.6%
SWI−	17	64	SP	92.75%	83.89%–97.61%	LR+	10.30	Cohen’s k	0.69	0.57–0.81
Joint space changes	CT+	CT−
T1+	26	7	SE	70.27%	53.02%–84.13%	LR−	0.32	Agreement	86.8%
T1−	11	92	SP	92.93%	85.97%–97.11%	LR+	9.94	Cohen’s k	0.654	0.5–0.8
SWI+	28	10	SE	75.68%	58.8%–88.23%	LR−	0.27	Agreement	86%
SWI−	9	89	SP	89.9%	82.21%–95.05%	LR+	7.49	Cohen’s k	0.65	0.51–0.79

All values were calculated using CT as standard of reference or in comparison with CT (absolute agreement and Cohen’s kappa). Agreement of SWI with CT was significantly higher for sclerosis (p<0.001) and tended to be higher for erosions (p=0.143), while there was no difference for joint space changes (p=1).

Bold text have been used to mark the subsection headings of the table.

SWI, susceptibility-weighted imaging.