Table 2. The results of quality evaluation of QUADAS.

Study	Total	Quality indicators From Quadas Scale
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
Van	26	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Li	26	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Luan	19	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	0
Scambia	20	0	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	0
Li	26	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Huang	24	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Gaarenstroom	24	2	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Duk	23	2	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	1
Wei	24	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Xiong	24	2	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Takeda	26	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Takeshima	22	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	0	0
Gao	26	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
kim	28	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Bae	26	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2

Score 2 means yes, 1 means not clearly and 0 means no.

For this study, there are 14 items to evaluate the studies. 1.Were the patients all cervical squamous cancer? 2.Were selection criteria clearly described? 3.Were pathological diagnosis reference standard? 4.Did the patients have SCCa evaluation before treatment? 5.Have all the patients have lymph node pathological diagnosis? 6.Was pathological diagnosis the only standard for lymph node metastasis? 7.Were the pathological diagnosis independent of the SCCa test? 8.Can SCCa be repeated? 9Was the execution of pathological diagnosis described sufficiently enough to permit replication? 10Was the SCCa interpreted without knowledge of the pathological results? 11.Was the pathological results interpreted without the knowledge of the SCCa? 12.Were the clinical data credible? 13.Did they report all the results including the cases difficult to explain? 14.Were withdrawals from the study explained?