Table 4.
Sensitivity estimates for different lesion sizes
| Lesion size | Number of studies | MRIa | CTb | Chi-square (dfd) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (95% CIc) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | ||||
| ≤1 cm | 4e | 0.46 (0.30–0.63) | 0.20 (0.11–0.32) | 4.62 (1) | 0.03 |
| >1 cm | 6f | 0.86 (0.73–0.94) | 0.74 (0.56–0.87) | 1.53 (1) | 0.22 |
| ≤2 cm | 9g | 0.82 (0.70–0.91) | 0.53 (0.36–0.70) | 6.41 (1) | 0.01 |
| >2 cm | 3h | 0.98 (0.85–1.00) | 0.94 (0.71–0.99) | 0.56 (1) | 0.46 |
The studies were divided into subgroups based on the size of lesions. Sensitivity estimates were calculated for both imaging techniques and compared in each subgroup
aGd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging
bContrasted-enhanced multidetector CT
cConfidence interval
dDegrees of freedom
eBaek et al. [13], Kakihara et al. [14], Kim et al. [15], Yoo et al. [11]
fBaek et al. [13], Di Martino et al. [7], Granito et al. [20], Kakihara et al. [14], Kim et al. [15], Yoo et al. [11]
gBaek et al. [13], Di Martino et al. [7], Granito et al. [20], Haradome et al. [8], Kakihara et al. [14], Kim et al. [15], Park et al. [21], Sano et al. [9], Sun et al. [10]