Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Results of Philips intrascanner and vendor interscanner comparisons

From: Comparison of 3T MR scanners in regional cartilage-thickness analysis in osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional multicenter, multivendor study

Scanner pair Region RMS COV Mean difference/bias (mm) 95% limits of agreement (mm) Paired ttest
     Lower bound Upper bound Pvalue
Philips first to second scan(intrascanner) cLF 2.6% 0.00 -0.19 0.20 0.95
  cMF 3.2% 0.03 -0.14 0.20 0.23
  LT 4.1% -0.05 -0.34 0.25 0.30
  MT 4.6% 0.00 -0.30 0.30 0.98
  LF 3.6% 0.00 -0.23 0.23 0.98
  MF 2.8% 0.05 -0.08 0.18 0.02a
Philips to Siemens cLF 4.1% 0.06 -0.13 0.25 0.10
  cMF 5.4% 0.05 -0.19 0.30 0.04a
  LT 4.0% 0.06 -0.10 0.22 0.75
  MT 5.6% 0.05 -0.33 0.43 0.30
  LF 4.9% 0.13 -0.04 0.30 0.00a
  MF 5.8% 0.08 -0.12 0.29 0.00a
Siemens to GE cLF 5.1% 0.12 -0.11 0.36 0.00a
  cMF 5.6% 0.13 -0.06 0.31 0.00a
  LT 7.7% -0.24 -0.55 0.06 0.00a
  MT 7.7% -0.17 -0.51 0.18 0.01a
  LF 4.2% 0.04 -0.20 0.27 0.28
  MF 5.2% 0.01 -0.25 0.26 0.85
Philips to GE cLF 6.6% 0.18 -0.03 0.39 0.00a
  cMF 9.6% 0.21 -0.03 0.46 0.00a
  LT 8.1% -0.23 -0.60 0.13 0.00a
  MT 5.4% -0.12 -0.34 0.11 0.00a
  LF 7.2% 0.17 -0.14 0.47 0.00a
  MF 7.3% 0.14 -0.14 0.42 0.00a
  1. aP < 0.05 (between-scanner differences are significant). The Bland-Altman plots (not shown) showed no relations between mean and difference of per-subject measures of regional cartilage thickness. cLF, central lateral femur; cMF, central medial femur; LF, lateral femur; LT, lateral tibia; MF, medial femur; MT, medial tibia; RMS COV, root-mean-square coefficient of variation.