Table 4.
Quality assessment of the studies selected for evaluating the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT in RCC
| Study | Year | IV |
EV |
Total IV score | Total EV score | % of max score | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IV1 | IV2 | IV3 | IV4 | IV5 | IV6 | EV1 | EV2 | EV3 | EV4 | EV5 | EV6 | |||||
| Ramdave et al.[12] | 2001 | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | 2 | 4 | 50.0 |
| Chang et al.[13] | 2002 | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | 2 | 3 | 41.7 |
| Miyakita et al.[14] | 2002 | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | 2 | 4 | 50.0 |
| Safaei et al.[15] | 2002 | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | – | + | – | 2 | 3 | 41.7 |
| Wu et al.[16] | 2002 | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | 2 | 4 | 50.0 |
| Aide et al.[17] | 2003 | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 3 | 5 | 66.7 |
| Jadvar et al.[18] | 2003 | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | 2 | 4 | 50.0 |
| Majhail et al.[19] | 2003 | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | 4 | 4 | 66.7 |
| Kang et al.[20] | 2004 | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | 2 | 4 | 50.0 |
| Park et al.[21] | 2009 | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | 2 | 5 | 58.3 |
| Nakatani et al.[22] | 2009 | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | 2 | 6 | 66.7 |
| Kumar et al.[23] | 2010 | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | 4 | 6 | 83.3 |
| Llano et al.[24] | 2010 | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | 2 | 6 | 66.7 |
| Ozulker et al.[25] | 2011 | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | 3 | 4 | 58.3 |
Total IV/EV score: total number of the positive scores in IV1–IV6/EV1–EV6. % of max score: ((total IV score + total EV score)/12) × 100%.