UC was 0.9623 (E = 0.0127)Hu YY et al . ME-NBI for EGC diagnosisTable

ME-NBI for EGC diagnosisTable 2 Excellent of articles utilizing the good quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies HMR-1275 web toolRef. Liu et al[19] Yao et al[20] Kanesaka et al[21] Tao et al[4] Horiuchi et al[22] Maki et al[5] Miwa et al[6] Tsuji et al[24] Li et al[23] Ezoe et al[3] Nonaka et al[25] Ezoe et al[7] Kato et al[8] Yao et al[26] Item 1 Item two Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item eight Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Scores Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U Y U U U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U U U U Y Y U Y U N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 14 14 12 13 12 12 12 14 14 12 14 13 13Item 1: Was the spectrum of patients representative on the patients who will get the test in practice? Item two: Had been choice criteria clearly described? Item 3: Is the reference normal most likely to appropriately SART.S23503 classify the target condition? Item four: May be the time period amongst reference regular and index test brief adequate to become reasonably confident that the target condition did not alter in between the two tests? Item 5: Did the whole sample or maybe a random selection of the sample get verification by using a reference typical of diagnosis? Item 6: Did patients obtain the same reference common regardless of the index test outcome? Item 7: Was the reference normal independent in the index test? Item 8: Was the execution on the index test described in adequate detail to permit replication from the test? Item 9: Was the execution in the reference common described in adequate detail to permit its replication? Item 10: Were the index test benefits interpreted without having expertise of the outcomes of your reference regular? Item 11: Were the reference standard final results interpreted without having understanding from the final results in the index test? Item 12: Have been exactly the same clinical information out there when test benefits were interpreted as would be obtainable when the test is made use of in practice? s13415-015-0390-3 Item 13: Have been uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported? Item 14: Were withdrawals from the study explained? Y: Yes; N: No; U: Unclear.aLiu 2014 Yao 2014 Kanesaka 2014 Tao 2013 Horiuchi 2013 Maki 2013 Miwa 2012 Tsuji 2012 Li 2012 Ezoe 2011 Nonaka 2011 Ezoe 2010 Kato 2010 YaoSensitivity (95 CI) 0.80 (0.52-0.96) 0.60 (0.36-0.81) 0.88 (0.74-0.96) 0.92 (0.73-0.99) 1.00 (0.69-1.00) 0.95 (0.86-0.99) 0.88 (0.76-0.95) 0.75 (0.63-0.85) 0.97 (0.91-1.00) 0.60 (0.36-0.81) 0.90 (0.80-0.96) 0.70 (0.51-0.85) 0.93 (0.66-1.00) 0.96 (0.82-1.00)Pooled Sensitivity = 0.86 (0.83-0.89)two = 52.77; df = 13 (P = 0.0000) 2 Inconsistency (I ) = 75.40.0 0.2 0.four 0.6 Sensitivity 0.8 1.WJG|www.wjgnet.comJuly 7, 2015|Volume 21|Challenge 25|Hu YY et al .