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