Table 2.
Lowest score quartile Q1 vs. Q2–4 (ref) | Score < 4 vs. score ≥ 4 (ref) | Score < 6 vs. score ≥ 6 (ref) | Score < 8 vs. score ≥ 8 (ref) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
eGDR Williams | 3.61 [3.05;4.28] p < 0.001 | 3.08 [2.54;3.74] p < 0.001 | 3.97† [3.19;4.94] p < 0.001 | 3.18 [2.61;3.89] p < 0.001 |
eGDR Duca | 1.34 [1.11;1.61] p = 0.002 | 1.09 [0.92;1.30] p = 0.33 | 1.41 [0.95;2.11] p = 0.09 | 2.72 [0.38;19.32] p = 0.32 |
eGDR Januszewksi | 2.09 [1.76;2.48] p < 0.001 | 2.54† [2.06;3.15] p < 0.001 | 2.13† [1.70;2.66] p < 0.001 | 1.61 [1.31;1.98] p < 0.001 |
†As the proportional hazard assumption was violated for the full follow-up time, the follow-up time was restricted to a maximum of 15 years