The following table or figure may be downloaded to PowerPoint for personal use in teaching and presentations. This feature is available to all subscribers to the journal.

You MUST read and follow the guidelines at Request to Reproduce AJR Content if you are distributing or using AJR content beyond academic use (limited distribution, non-revenue producing, or educational purposes).

(Downloading may take up to 30 seconds.
If the slide opens in your browser, select File -> Save As to save it.)
Click on image to view larger version.

Fig. 2G. —Scores for image quality were derived from four reviewers using scale of 1–5 (1, an anatomic structure was well visualized in all sections; 2, structure was well visualized in some sections; 3, satisfactory visualization; 4, insufficient visualization; and 5, structure could not be detected on image) to rate detectability of various anatomic structures. Two to six typical organ features were described, depending on structure being reviewed. Because of this procedure, these scores were not in original score range of 1–5. Point clouds on graphs depicting scores for image quality can be interpreted as follows: Medians of sum scores for image quality produced by flat-panel detector radiography appear on x-axis. Y-axis represents medians of sum scores for image quality produced by computed radiography. Points on bisector of angle indicate that image quality of two methods was rated as equivalent. Graphs on which points appear above angle bisector indicate that image quality of digital flat-panel detector radiography was rated better than that of computed radiography. Conversely, graphs on which points appear beneath angle bisector indicate that image quality of digital flat-panel detector radiography was judged to be poorer than that of computed radiography. For depiction of psoas margin, symmetric distribution of points above and beneath bisector of angle indicates no significant difference between computed radiography and digital flat-panel detector radiography.