Table 2.
TP, FP, FN, TN, and diagnostic performance of CT.
| Author | TP | FP | FN | TN | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cha et al. [8] | 6 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 100 | 60 | 50.0 | 100 | 71.4 |
| Lee et al. [9] | 30 | 12 | 2 | 11 | 93.8 | 47.8 | 71.4 | 84.6 | 74.5 |
| Aloia et al. [10] | 17 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 85 | 91.7 | 94.4 | 78.6 | 87.5 |
| Endo et al. [11] | 14 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 100 | 83.3 | 93.3 | 100 | 95 |
| Unno et al. [12] | 15 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 100 | 55.6 | 78.9 | 100 | 83 |
| Park et al. [13] | 16 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 100 | 63.6 | 80.0 | 100 | 85 |
| Kim et al. [14] | 74 | 12 | 8 | 29 | 90.2 | 70.7 | 86.0 | 78.4 | 83.7 |
| Chen et al. [15] | 45 | 5 | 2 | 23 | 95.7 | 82.1 | 90.0 | 92.0 | 91 |
| Yu et al. [16] | 7 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 100 | 83.3 | 87.5 | 100 | 92 |
| Cannon et al. [17] | 37 | 22 | 0 | 51 | 100 | 69.9 | 62.7 | 100 | 80 |
| Nagakawa et al. [18] | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 100 | 33.3 | 83.3 | 100 | 85 |
TP: true positive; FP: false positive; TN: true negative; FN: false negative.