TABLE 6.

Review of the literature.

Myometrial invasion
Author	Year	Patient number	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value
Goel et al. [22]	2018	58	74.14%	75%	73.08%	77.2%	70.37%
Tanase et al. [23]	2018	84	88.1%	82.1%	93.5%
Yu-ting huang et al. [24]	2019	Review of literature	77–90%	85–94%	60–73%
Shatat et al. [25]	2019	29	75.86–93.1%	66.7–94.7%	60–94.7%	60–94.7%	66.7–94.7%
Yildirim et al. [26]	2018	40	75%	77.8%	72.7%	70%	80%
Gil et al. [27]	2019	44	61–95%	58–96%	58–96%	55–96%	55–95%
Current study	2020	96	69.8%	80%	60.8%	64.3%	77.5%
Lymph node spread
Author	Year	Patient number	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value
Goel et al. [22]	2018	58	86%	88.64%	66.67%	95.12%	44.4%
Tanase et al. [23]	2018	84		74.4%	82.1%
Yu-ting huang et al. [24]	2019	Review of literature	77–99%	50–85%	90–99%
Current study	2020	96	78.1%	28.6%	82%	11.1%	93.6%

Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MR imaging regarding Myometrial invasion and lymph node spread.