Table 9.
Sensitivity and specificity of FNAC, CT, MRI expressed in percentage
| Authors | Type of the study | FNAC | CT | MRI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sens | Spec | Sens | Spec | Sens | Spec | ||
| Knappe et al. | Prospective, single institution | 89.2 | 98.1 | ||||
| Takes et al. | Prospective, multi-institute | 77 | 100 | ||||
| Dammann et al. | Prospective, single institution | 80 | 93 | 93 | 95 | ||
| Adams et al. | Prospective, single institution | 82 | 85 | 80 | 79 | ||
| Brekel et al. | Prospective, single institution | 76 | 100 | ||||
| De Bondt et al. | Meta-analysis | 80 | 98 | 81 | 76 | 81 | 63 |
| Sumi et al. | Retrospective,single institution | 68 | 79 | 83 | 89 | ||
| Akoglu et al. | Prospective, single institution | 77.7 | 85.7 | 59.2 | 92.8 | ||
| Yoon et al. | Retrospective, multi-institute | 77 | 99.4 | 77 | 99.4 | ||
| Our research | Retrospective, single institution | 81.8 | 100 | 82.8 | 73.9 | ||