Table 1.
Magnetic resonance imaging | Computed tomography | ||||||||||||
Author | Year | Country | N | Mean age | Men/women | True positive | False positive | True negative | False negative | True positive | False positive | True negative | False negative |
Schaefer et al[22] | 2006 | Germany | 46 | 61.0 | 36/10 | 21 | 13 | 9 | 3 | 23 | 13 | 9 | 1 |
Regier et al[23] | 2011 | Germany | 20 | 66.4 | 10/10 | 24 | 1 | 12 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 13 | 0 |
Kim et al[24] | 2004 | Korea | 81 | 50.0 | 54/27 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 1 |
Schroeder et al[25] | 2005 | Germany | 30 | 53.3 | 19/11 | 102 | 3 | 43 | 2 | 102 | 2 | 43 | 3 |
Dewes et al[26] | 2016 | Germany | 54 | 60.8 | 27/27 | 121 | 3 | 14 | 16 | 137 | 0 | 14 | 0 |
Sommer et al[27] | 2014 | Germany | 49 | 61.0 | 31/18 | 26 | 4 | 29 | 28 | 54 | 0 | 33 | 0 |
Ohno et al[28] | 2015 | Japan | 198 | 75.4 | 111/87 | 123 | 25 | 60 | 10 | 133 | 0 | 85 | 0 |
Ohno et al[29] | 2008 | Japan | 175 | 72.1 | 92/83 | 142 | 29 | 21 | 10 | 152 | 0 | 50 | 0 |