Table 1.

Basic characteristics and diagnostic performance of F. nucleatum in CRC

Authors	Year	Country	Sample types	Detection methods	QUADAS scores	Sample collection	Sample size, n	TP, n	FN, n	FP, n	TN, n	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)
Wong et al.[24]	2017	China	Feces	Real-time qPCR	12	Colonoscopy	206	75	29	9	93	72.1	91.2	89.3	76.2
Wong et al.[24]	2017	China	Feces	Real-time qPCR	12	Colonoscopy	119	21	2	19	77	91.3	80.2	52.5	97.5
Liang et al.[25]	2017	China	Feces	Probe-based duplex qPCR	11	Colonoscopy	370	132	38	41	159	77.7	79.5	76.3	80.7
Liang et al.[25]	2017	China	Feces	Probe-based duplex qPCR	11	Colonoscopy	69	27	6	17	19	81.8	52.8	61.4	76.0
Yu et al.[26]	2016	China	CRC tissues	FISH	11	Colonoscopy	113	62	31	4	16	66.7	80.0	93.9	34.0
Suehiro et al.[27]	2017	Japan	Feces	Droplet digital PCR	11	Colonoscopy or surgical operation	218	85	73	6	54	53.8	90.0	93.4	42.5
Kostic et al.[20]	2013	USA	Feces	qPCR	10	Surgical operation	58	27	0	15	16	100.0	51.6	64.3	100.0
Mira-Pascual et al.[19]	2015	Spain	Feces	Real-time qPCR	10	Colonoscopy	16	6	1	2	7	85.7	77.8	75.0	87.5
Mira-Pascual et al.[19]	2015	Spain	CRC tissues	Real-time qPCR	10	Colonoscopy	12	2	5	0	5	28.6	100.0	100.0	50.0
Fukugaiti et al.[28]	2015	Brazil	Feces	Real-time qPCR	10	Colonoscopy	17	7	0	9	1	100.0	10.0	43.8	100.0

TP: True positive; FN: False negative; FP: False positive; TN: True negative; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; CRC: Colorectal cancer; F. nucleatum: Fusobacterium nucleatum; qPCR: Quantitative polymerase chain reaction; FISH: Fluorescence in situ hybridization; QUADAS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study.