Table 3.

Diagnostic performance for all the included studies, sorted by modality

Author	Modality	Unit of analysis	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy	DOR
Arulampalam et al. (2001) [57]	PET	PbP	93	58	85	78	83	16
Cohade et al. (2003) [58]	PET	LbL	88	56	92	43	83	8
Delbeke et al. (1997) [59]	PET	Both	94	86	97	73	92	74
Imbriaco et al. (2000) [6]	PET	LbL	94	95	96	93	95	222
Kim et al. (2005) [7]	PET	Both	74	93	77	92	88	33
Lonneux et al. (2002) [60]	PET	Both	97	73	96	80	94	465
Nakamoto et al. (2007) [61]	PET	PbP	75	82	84	71	78	12
Ruhlmann et al. (1997) [62]	PET	PbP	100	75	94	100	95	236
Staib et al. (2000) [64]	PET	PbP	98	91	93	98	95	328
Valk et al. (1999) [65]	PET	PbP	96	71	96	71	93	51
Whiteford et al. (2000) [66]	PET	PbP	87	68	92	58	84	697
Willkomm et al. (2000) [8]	PET	PbP	100	100	100	100	100	14
Arulampalam et al. (2001) [57]	CT	PbP	73	75	88	53	74	7
Imbriaco et al. (2000) [6]	CT	LbL	74	70	77	67	72	6
Nakamoto et al. (2007) [61]	CT	PbP	69	93	93	69	79	51
Staib et al. (2000) [64]	CT	PbP	91	72	80	87	82	22
Valk et al. (1999) [65]	CT	PbP	78	50	92	24	75	4
Chen et al. (2007) [2]	PET/CT	PbP	95	83	96	77	93	64
Cohade et al. (2003) [58]	PET/CT	LbL	86	67	94	44	83	11
Kim et al. (2005) [7]	PET/CT	Both	89	98	94	96	96	298
Nakamoto et al. (2007) [61]	PET/CT	PbP	75	96	96	74	84	23
Schmidt et al. (2009) [63]	PET/CT	Both	86	97	96	88	91	136
Schmidt et al. (2009) [63]	MRI	Both	73	93	90	79	83	35

If both lesion based and patient based results were provided, results for lesion based analyses are shown in this table

PET positron emission tomography, CT computed tomography, PET/CT positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, PbP patient-by-patient based analysis, LbL lesion-by-lesion based analysis