F-18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography imaging in primary staging of patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review

Table 3 Results of meta-analyses on diagnostic accuracy

		Sensitivity (%) (95% CI)^a	Specificity (%)(95% CI)^a
N-staging
Our review	PET (analyzed by patients)	0 to 90 ^e	18.2 to 100 ^e
Our review	PET/CT (analyzed by patients)	14 to 87 ^e	95 to 100 ^e
Xing and colleagues [17]	PET (analyzed by patients and lesions; mixed)^b	30 (12 to 55)	96 (87 to 99)
Xing and colleagues [17]	PET/CT (analyzed by patients and lesions; mixed)^b	11 (1 to 50)	97 (97 to 100)
Jimenéz-Requena and colleagues [14]	PET (analyzed by lymph nodes)^b	– ^c	99 (97 to 99)
	PET (analyzed by patients)	–^c	–^c
	PET (analyzed by areas)^b	–^c	–^c
M-staging
Our review	PET (analyzed by patients)	33 to 97 ^e	56 to 98 ^e
Our review	PET/CT (analyzed by patients)	42 (15 to 72) ^d	93 (81 to 99) ^d
Xing and colleagues [17]	PET (analyzed by patients and lesions; mixed)^b	74 (51 to 88)	75 (45 to 91)
Xing and colleagues [17]	PET/CT (analyzed by patients and lesions; mixed)^b	80 (53 to 93)	87 (54 to 97)
Jimenéz-Requena and colleagues [14]	PET (analyzed by patients)	–^c	–^c
	PET (analyzed by lesions)^b	– ^c	– ^c
	PET (analyzed by areas)^b	86 (82 to 89)	– ^c
	PET (analyzed by Scans)^b	– ^c	86 (77 to 92)
N-staging and M-staging
Our review	PET(analyzed by patients)	0 to 100 ^e	18 to 100 ^e
Our review	PET/CT (analyzed by patients)	17 to 85 ^e	74 to 96 ^e
Krug and colleagues [15]	PET (analyzed by patients, lesions and scans; mixed)^b	83 (81 to 84)	85 (83 to 87)
Mijnhout and colleagues [16]	PET (analyzed by patients, lesions and scans; mixed)^b	78 (70 to 84)	88 (82 to 92)

CT, computed tomography; PET, positron emission tomography. ^aPooled estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI), except for: Xing and colleagues, specification of median with credible intervals; Jiménez-Requena and colleagues, specification of mean values with CI; our review, specification of ranges. ^bThe results of these nonpatient-based analyses are not relevant for our review. ^cAuthors reported that quantitative synthesis was not possible due to heterogeneity. ^dData based on only one study. ^eSince the data were too heterogeneous, a quantitative synthesis of the results was not possible. Therefore a range of data is provided. Data of our systematic review is highlighted in bold font face.

ISSN: 2046-4053