Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of the averages including the radiologists’ feedback with the average excluding the radiologists’ feedback

From: Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display

Variable

Average including radiologists’ feedback (n = 20)

Average excluding radiologists’ feedback (n = 15)

Understanding of the pathology

 3D-Print

7.5 (2.3)

7.6 (2.4)

 VR-Glasses

8.1 (2.0)

8.0 (2.3)

 3D-Display

7.6 (1.9)

7.6 (2.0)

Accuracy of details

 3D-Print

6.6 (2.3)

6.7 (2.1)

 VR-Glasses

7.9 (1.5)

8.0 (1.4)

 3D-Display

8.5 (1.5)

8.5 (1.6)

Quality of the anatomical representation

 3D-Print

7.6 (2.0)

7.7 (2.0)

 VR-Glasses

8.4 (1.6)

8.4 (1.3)

 3D-Display

8.3 (1.2)

8.3 (1.2)

Technical operability

 VR-Glasses

7.7 (1.8)

7.4 (1.8)

 3D-Display

8.6 (1.6)

8.4 (1.8)

  1. Data: The rating scale ranged from 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent). Values are given as mean (with standard deviation (SD) in brackets)