Skip to main content

Table. 1 Baseine characteristics of included studes

From: Utility of diffusion weighted imaging with the quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient in diagnosing residual or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial chemoembolization: a meta-analysis

Author

Year

Country

Design

No. Patient

Gender

Age, Year

time interval

No. lesion

Field Strength

b value

Blind

Reference Standard

ADC cut off value

(×10−3 mm2/s)

Threshold

used

Afifi [9]

2016

Egypt

Pro

20

18/2

56(42–69)

3w

20

1.5 T

0, 300,600

NR

follow up

NR

Visual

Du [10]

2014

China

Re

89

57/32

56.0(26–78)

1mo

113

1.5 T

0,800

NR

follow up

1.54

ADC

Ebraheem [11]

2017

Egypt

Pro

50

42/8

60(40–79)

NR

50

1.5 T

0,50,1000

NR

follow up

NR

Visual

Goshima [12]

2008

Japan

Re

25

18/7

60(48–79)

2-6mo

39

1.5 T

0,500

Y

follow up

NR

Visual

Hassan [13]

2019

USA

Re

60

45/15

60(40–73)

NR

63

1.5 T

0,400,800

NR

follow up

N

Visual

Kokabi [14]

2015

Georgia

Pro

57

39/18

61.3(25–82)

3mo

57

1.5 T

50,400,800

NR

follow up

0.83

ADC

Li [15]

2016

China

Pro

117

86/31

51.7(31–74)

1mo

117

NR

NR

NR

follow up

1.24

ADC

Mannelli [16]

2009

USA

Re

21

19/2

57.7(30–70)

10d-3mo

28

1.5 T

0,50,500

Y

Patholoy

2.16

ADC

Wu [17]

2017

China

Pro

84

57/27

54.5(25–76)

1mo-2mo

84

1.5 T

300,600,800

NR

follow up

1.20

ADC

Xiao [18]

2008

China

Re

15

13/2

45.7(17–63)

10d-2mo

30

1.5 T

0,500

Y

patholoy

NR

Visual

Yousef [19]

2017

Egypt

Pro

45

38/7

59(38–75)

3w-5 m

59

1.5 T

0,400,800

NR

follow up

NR

Visual

Yuan [20]

2014

China

Pro

41

34/7

56.2(23–78)

6w-8w

52

1.5 T

0,500

Y

follow up

1.84

Visual

  1. No Number, Pro Prospective, Re Retrospective, NR Not report, ADC Apparent diffusion coefficient