Table 3 The results of the multivariable analysis based on Observer 1’s category scores analysis indicated some evidence that all four factors were significantly associated with the outcome (Model 1). However, the result for contour was not quite statistically significant. When only strictly significant variables were considered (Model 2), the results suggested that echogenicity, colour flow and calcification were still all significantly associated with the outcome. Observer 2’s category scores are almost identical
Outcome | Category | Odds ratio (95 % CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | |||
Echogenicity | Hyperechoic/isoechoic | 1 | |
Hypoechoic | 0.55 (0.08, 3.56) | ||
Markedly hypoechoic | 6.81 (1.11, 41.9) | ||
Cyst | 0.48 (0.06, 3.81) | 0.04 | |
Contour | Well defined | 1 | |
Borderline/ill-defined | 8.11 (0.72, 91.2) | 0.09 | |
Colour flow | No flow or peripheral > central flow | 1 | |
Central flow ≥ peripheral flow | 26.0 (4.07, 166) | 0.001 | |
Calcification | No calcification | 1 | |
Coarse calcification or microcalcification | 5.83 (1.18, 28.9) | 0.03 | |
Model 2 | |||
Echogenicity | Hyperechoic/isoechoic | 1 | |
Hypoechoic | 0.84 (0.16, 4.33) | ||
Markedly hypoechoic | 9.69 (1.81, 51.9) | ||
Cyst | 0.42 (0.05, 3.67) | 0.01 | |
Colour flow | No flow or peripheral > central flow | 1 | |
Central flow ≥ peripheral flow | 25.1 (4.05, 156) | 0.001 | |
Calcification | No | 1 | |
Coarse calcification or Microcalcification | 12.1 (2.66, 54.9) | 0.001 | |