Meta-Analysis: Computed Tomographic Colonography

  1. Brian P. Mulhall, MD, MPH;
  2. Ganesh R. Veerappan, MD; and
  3. Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH
  1. From Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Uniformed Services University, Washington, DC.
    1. Figure 1. Summary statistics: For polyps <6 mm, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.70); for polyps 6–9 mm, 0.70 (CI, 0.55 to 0.84); for polyps >9 mm, 0.85 (CI, 0.79 to 0.91).
      View larger version:
      Figure 1. Summary statistics: For polyps <6 mm, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.70); for polyps 6–9 mm, 0.70 (CI, 0.55 to 0.84); for polyps >9 mm, 0.85 (CI, 0.79 to 0.91). Reported per-patient sensitivities in the included studies, by polyp size.
    2. Figure 2.
      View larger version:
      Figure 2. Reported per-patient sensitivities in the included studies, by type of scanner.
    3. Figure 3.
      View larger version:
      Figure 3. Reported per-patient sensitivities in the included studies by mode of imaging.
    4. Figure 4.
      View larger version:
      Figure 4. Reported per-patient specificities in the included studies, by polyp size.
    5. Appendix Figure. The QUORUM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) guidelines for reporting of meta-analyses were used. CRC = colorectal cancer; CT = computed tomographic.
      View larger version:
      Appendix Figure. The QUORUM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) guidelines for reporting of meta-analyses were used. CRC = colorectal cancer; CT = computed tomographic. Map of the literature search and selection process.Graphic

    Responses to this article

    Summary for Patients

    « Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents