Table 5.
Comparison of statistical results analysing the significance of hypoechogenicity between various studies
| Suspicious ultrasound feature | Malignant nodule | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present | Absent | ||||
| Hypoechogenicity | Present | Kwak et al. | 169 | 508 | 677 |
| Chandra-mohan et al. | 41 | 24 | 65 | ||
| Srinivas et al. | 5 | 88 | 93 | ||
| Our study | 16 | 8 | 24 | ||
| Absent | Kwak et al. | 106 | 875 | 981 | |
| Chandra-mohan et al. | 77 | 130 | 207 | ||
| Srinivas et al. | 20 | 252 | 272 | ||
| Our study | 7 | 96 | 103 | ||
| Hypoechogenicity | Kwak et al. | Chandra-mohan et al. | Srinivas et al. | Our study | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 61.4 | 34.7 | 20.0 | 69.5 | |
| Specificity (%) | 63.2 | 84.4 | 74.1 | 92.0 | |
| PPV (%) | 24.9 | 63.0 | 5.3 | 66.7 | |
| OR | 2.7 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 26.2 | |
| P | < 0.0001* | 0.0003* | 0.51 | < 0.0001* | |