Skip to main content

Table 1 The principal characteristics of eligible studies

From: Indirect comparison of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study /Year /Country

No. of patients

Mean age

Study design

Consecutive

Scanner

Cutoff value

Reference standard

Interval between index tests and HP

TP

FP

FN

FP

SUVmax

ADC(10−3 mm2/s)

Castellucci P /2007 /Italy [29]

50

64

P

Yes

PET/CT (Non-CE)

3.0

 

HP + follow-up

≤ 2 W

28

0

4

18

Kitajima K/2011 /Japan [30]

108(111tumor)

55.4

NR

NR

PET/CT (Non-CE + CE)

2.55

 

HP

NR

70

6

15

20

Zytoon AA/2012 /Egypt [31]

98

57.7

P

yes

PET/CT (Non-CE)

4.3

 

HP + follow-up

≤ 4 W

87

0

7

4

Risum S/2007 /Denmark [32]

97

60

P

yes

PET/CT (Non-CE + CE)

NR

 

HP

≤ 2 W

57

3

0

37

Tanizaki Y/2014 /Japan [33]

160

NR

R

NR

PET/CT

(Non-CE)

2.9

 

HP

NR

54

5

13

88

Dauwen H/2013 /Belgium [34]

69

60

P

Yes

PET/CT (Non-CE + CE)

NR

 

HP

≤17d

52

3

4

10

Yamamoto Y/ 2008/Japan [35]

30

47.7

P

Yes

PET/CT (Non-CE)

3.0

 

HP

NR

10

3

4

13

Takagi H/2018 /Japan [36]

76

59

R

NR

PET/CT (Non-CE)

3.97

 

HP

NR

39

5

2

30

Michielsen K/2013 /Belgium [37]

32

61.9

P

Yes

PET/CT (Non-CE)

NR

 

HP

NR

29

2

0

1

Lee JW/2015/ Korea [38]

39

51

R

NR

PET/CT (Non-CE + CE)

2.5

 

HP

≤ 7 W

18

4

0

17

Nam EJ/2009 /Korea [39]

133

51

P

NR

PET/CT (Non-CE + CE)

NR

 

HP

≤ 4 W

93

10

2

28

Nam EJ/2009 /Korea [39]

133

51

P

NR

MRI (1.5 T)

 

NR

HP

≤ 4 W

69

7

3

6

Kawahara K/ 2004/Japan [40]

38

55.3

P

yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

NR

HP

≤ 2 W

21

2

2

13

Kierans AS/2013 /USA [41]

37

54

R

Yes

MRI (1.5/3 T)

 

NR

HP

≤ 137D

6

3

3

25

Türkoğlu S/ 2020/Turkey [42]

43

51.26

R

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

0.93

HP

≤ 1 W

15

5

8

15

Michielsen K/ 2017/Belgium [43]

161

NR

P

Yes

MRI (3 T)

 

NR

HP

NR

122

8

4

27

Uehara T/2012 /Japan [44]

50

51

R

Yes

MRI (3 T)

 

NR

HP

NR

18

3

1

28

Booth SJ/ 2008/UK [45]

191

56

R

NR

MRI (3 T)

 

NR

HP

NR

90

22

8

71

Shimada K/2017 /Japan [46]

265

NR

P

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

NR

HP

≤4 M

52

18

2

193

Zhang H/2019 /China [47]

85

52.7

R

Yes

MRI(1.5 T)

 

1.162

HP

NR

51

3

11

20

Zhang P/2012/ China [48]

191(202tumor)

56.5

R

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

1.20

HP

NR

85

43

7

67

Li W/2011/ China [49]

127(131tumor)

B = 46.2,M = 59.9

R

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

1.25

HP

NR

77

5

8

41

Fan X/2015/ China [50]

64

46.7

R

NR

MRI (3 T)

 

0.878

HP

NR

54

5

4

25

Sohaib SA/2003/ UK [51]

104(155tumor)

50

P

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

NR

HP

NR

61

11

3

80

Gity M/2019/ Iran [52]

43(49tumor)

39.9

P

Yes

MRI (3 T)

 

NR

HP

NR

21

9

1

18

Pereira PN/2018/Brazil [53]

200(237tumor)

B = 47.1;M = 57.8

P

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

NR

HP + follow-up

NR

75

4

4

154

Van TP/2007/ UK [54]

76

B = 46;M = 57

P

Yes

MRI (1.5 T)

 

NR

HP

NR

23

7

2

44

Thomassin NI/ 2020/France [55]

1130

49

P

Yes

MRI (1.5/3 T)

 

NR

HP + follow-up

NR

189

79

14

848

  1. B Belign, M Malignant, HP Histopathology, P Prospective, R Retrospective, NR Not report, W Week, M Month, D Day, MRI Magnetic resonance imaging, PET/CT Positron emission computer/Computed tomography, T Tesla