Table 3. Diagnostic performance for individual studies of meta-analysis comparing EUS-FNA with and without ROSE.
| Reference | No. | TP | FP | FN | TN | Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROSE+ | ROSE- | ROSE+ | ROSE- | ROSE+ | ROSE- | ROSE+ | ROSE- | ROSE+ | ROSE- | ||
| Wani | 121 | 120 | 91 | 86 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 13 | 16 | 21 | 12* |
| Ganc | 24 | 24 | 16 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 11* |
| Nayar | 97 | 82 | 71 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 18 | 9 | 11* |
| Iglesias-Garcia | 95 | 87 | 76 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 16 | 32 | 11* |
ROSE, rapid on-site evaluation; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
*Quality of study was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool.