Authors | Proposed methods | Included studies | Evaluation measures | Statistical analyses | Results | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Myung-Won and Seong Jong | Diffusion Weighted Imaging | 8 | Sensitivity, specificity, HSROC curve | Stata 10.0, R software 3.4.1 | Sensitivity: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.91–0.91); specificity: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.87–0.87); HSROC curve: 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93–0.97). | Non-invasive, objective | Inefficient |
Wang, et al. | CEUS | 16 | Sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, HSROC curve | Stata 11.0, Review Manager 5.0 | Sensitivity: 0.92 (95%CI: 0.90, 0.94); specificity: 0.91 (95%CI: 0.89, 0.93); PLR: 10.01 (95%CI: 7.02, 14.29); NLR: 0.10 (95%CI: 0.07, 0.14); DOR: 123.02 (95%CI: 78.40, 193.03); HSROC curve: 0.9689 (95%CI: 0.9376, 0.9879). | Cost, non-invasive, no-radiation-exposure | Subject |
Cheng, et al. | CEUS | 12 | Sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, SROC curve | Stata 12.0 | Sensitivity: 0.81 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.84); specificity: 0.87 (95%CI: 0.85, 0.89); PLR: 10.43 (95%CI: 4.57, 23.83); NLR: 0.19 (95%CI: 0.11, 0.33); DOR: 58.84 (95%CI: 32.39, 106.88); SROC curve: 0.9371. | ||
Liang, et al. (the present study) | CEUS; CH-EUS | 21 | Sensitivity, specificity, DOR, SROC curve | Stata 15.0 | (CEUS) Sensitivity: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.75–0.86); specificity: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95); DOR: 64 (95%CI: 32, 127); SROC curve: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92). (CH-EUS) Sensitivity: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95); specificity: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.69–0.97); DOR: 89 (95%CI: 22, 354); SROC curve: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94). | (CEUS) Cost, non-invasive, no-radiation-exposure (CH-EUS) Cost, no-radiation-exposure, high-resolution | (CEUS) Subject (CH-EUS) Subject, invasive, inconvenient |