Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 24;8(8):1195–1205. doi: 10.1530/EC-19-0324

Table 4.

SWE-ROImean tested on cut-off points proposed in previous studies.

Cut-off pointa Nodules in previous study Test of present data on cut-off points proposed in previous studies
n (malignant, %) Estimates, % (95% CI)
Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV Accuracy
30 kPa (26) 169 (30) 46 (34–57) 58 (53–64) 21 (15–27) 82 (77–87) 56 (51–61)
31 kPa (15) 313 (62) 46 (34–57) 61 (56–66) 22 (15–28) 83 (78–87) 58 (53–63)
34 kPab (24) 137 (66) 38 (27–48) 69 (64–74) 22 (15–30) 82 (78–87) 63 (58–68)
39 kPa (13) 331 (31) 26 (16–36) 80 (75–84) 23 (14–32) 82 (78–86) 69 (65–74)
42 kPa (23) 62 (27) 23 (14–33) 86 (82–90) 27 (17–38) 83 (80–87) 75 (70–79)
49 kPac (22) 393 (6) 17 (9–25) 93 (90–96) 36 (20–52) 83 (79–86) 78 (74–82)
62 kPa (21) 99 (21) 9 (3–16) 97 (95–99) 41 (18–65) 82 (78–86) 80 (76–84)
85 kPa (14) 476 (80) 3 (−1 to 6) 99 (98–100) 33 (−4 to 71) 81 (77–85) 80 (76–84)
Rago 2-3 (29) 195 (20) 33 (23–43) 75 (70–80) 24 (16–32) 82 (78–87) 67 (62–71)

aCut-off points proposed in previous studies were selected for EI outcomes most similar to the definition of SWE-ROImean. bOnly nodules <10 mm. cThe cut-off point with the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity was selected.

kPa, kilo pascals; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.