Skip to main content

Table 3 Subgroup analysis of included studies evaluating for causes of presumed variability amongst studies

From: Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT for bone marrow edema in patients with acute knee injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Sensitivity (95% CI)

Specificity (95% CI)

AUROC (95% CI)

All

85% (77–90%)

96% (93–97%)

0.97 (0.95–0.98)

Qualitative only

80% (68–88%)

96% (90–98%)

0.95 (0.93–0.97)

Quantitative only

91% (85–95%)

95% (94–97%)

0.98 (0.96–0.99)

Femur only

81% (66–91%)

95% (91–98%)

0.96 (0.94–0.98)

Tibia only

89% (79–95%)

96% (89–98%)

0.97 (0.96–0.99)

North America/Europe

87% (77–93%)

93% (88–95%)

0.96 (0.94–0.97)

Asia

80% (71–87%)

98% (95–99%)

0.97 (0.95–0.98)

Prospective

82% (74–88%)

95% (91–98%)

0.95 (0.92–0.96)

Retrospective*

89% (62–97%)

96% (94–97%)

 

Consensus

81% (70–88%)

96% (89–98%)

0.94 (0.91–0.91)

No consensus

88% (77–94%)

96% (95–97%)

0.96 (0.94–0.98)

Mean Age 20–39

79% (67–88%)

96% (88–99%)

0.93 (0.91–0.95)

Mean Age 40–59

88% (79–93%)

95% (94–96%)

0.96 (0.94–0.97)

  1. *Univariate analysis performed when bivariate regression model did not converge due to limited number of studies (< 4) and zero values in the 2 × 2 contingency table