Assessment of lesions of SVMs and diagnostic time using different postprocessing CTA techniques by different readersa
| Reader 1 | Reader 4 | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPR-CTA | |||
| Visualization of lesions | 4.00 (1.25) | 6.00 (1.00) | .001b |
| Localization of lesions | 4.50 (2.00) | 6.00 (0.00) | .003b |
| Overall morphology | 4.00 (1.00) | 4.00 (0.00) | .025b |
| Diagnostic time | 9.00 (6.75) | 7.00 (3.00) | .017b |
| RBS-CTA | |||
| Visualization of lesions | 3.50 (3.00) | 3.50 (3.00) | .353 |
| Localization of lesions | 2.25 (3.00) | 3.00 (2.50) | .178 |
| Overall morphology | 2.50 (1.25) | 3.00 (2.00) | .070 |
| Diagnostic time | NA | NA | NA |
| SSBBF-CTA | |||
| Visualization of lesions | 6.00 (1.00) | 6.00 (1.00) | .705 |
| Localization of lesions | 6.00 (1.00) | 6.00 (1.00) | .206 |
| Overall morphology | 4.00 (0.25) | 4.00 (0.13) | .655 |
| Diagnostic time | 3.00 (2.00)c | 3.00 (1.25)c | .943 |
Note:—NA indicates not applicable; Reader 1, a radiologist with one year of experience; Reader 4, a radiologist with 4 years of experience.
a The data are presented as median (interquartile range). The visualization and localization of lesions represent the total score of the nidus/fistula, feeding artery, and drainage vein.
↵b There is a significant statistical difference between readers 1 and 4 (P < .05).
↵c There is a statistically significant difference in diagnostic time between the use of MPR-CTA and SSBBF-CTA (P = .000).