. 2022 Mar 18;47(5):1862–1872. doi: 10.1007/s00261-022-03490-9

Table 6.

Quantitative assessment of tumor conspicuity for Set 1, Set 2, and Set 3

	Quantitative Assessment
Reader 1	1903.36 (741.70)	1907.11 (779.04)	1765.49 (759.19)	562.40 (246.47)	431.09 (122.31)	499.63 (146.01)	4.12 (2.72)	4.74 (2.31)	3.90 (2,29)	0.79 (0.67–0.87)	0.83 (0.74–0.90)	0.91 (0.85–0.94)	Set 1 vs. Set 2 Set 1 vs. Set 3 Set 3 vs. Set 2	0.012 1.000 0.001
Reader 2	2000.21 (786.60)	1991.77 (789.82)	1799.52 (787.77)	572.58 (200.41)	540.92 (203.88)	517.86 (181.72)	3.92 (2.17)	4.22 (2.41)	3.99 (2.70)
Reader 3	2083.71 (675.69)	1883.91 (657.04)	1762.44 (697.06)	543.22 (222.29)	434.34 (109.86)	505.44 (159.99)	4.49 (2.30)	4.61 (1.97)	3.83 (1.98)

Quantitative Assessment

Tumor Intensity*
(Standard Deviation)

Bladder Content Intensity*
(Standard Deviation)

Tumor Conspicuity*
(Standard Deviation)

ICC
(95% CI**)

Pairwise Comparison

p-value***

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Reader 1

1903.36

(741.70)

1907.11

(779.04)

1765.49

(759.19)

562.40

(246.47)

431.09

(122.31)

499.63

(146.01)

4.12

(2.72)

4.74

(2.31)

3.90

(2,29)

0.79

(0.67–0.87)

0.83

(0.74–0.90)

0.91

(0.85–0.94)

Set 1 vs. Set 2

Set 1 vs. Set 3

Set 3 vs. Set 2

0.012

1.000

0.001

Reader 2

2000.21

(786.60)

1991.77

(789.82)

1799.52

(787.77)

572.58

(200.41)

540.92

(203.88)

517.86

(181.72)

3.92

(2.17)

4.22

(2.41)

3.99

(2.70)

Reader 3

2083.71

(675.69)

1883.91

(657.04)

1762.44

(697.06)

543.22

(222.29)

434.34

(109.86)

505.44

(159.99)

4.49

(2.30)

4.61

(1.97)

3.83

(1.98)

^*Mean value

^**Confidence Interval

^***Wilcoxon Test with Bonferroni’s correction