Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of league table

From: Comparative diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

US

1.12 (0.98, 1.39)

1.04 (0.9, 1.28)

1.14 (0.95, 1.55)

1.13 (0.85, 1.66)

1.06 (0.7, 1.73)

912.15 (1.43, 2282128217.72)

0.83 (0.69, 0.99)

ERCP

0.94 (0.76, 1.1)

1.02 (0.82, 1.31)

1.01 (0.74, 1.38)

0.95 (0.61, 1.45)

796.9 (1.27, 2020984886.98)

0.87 (0.7, 1.04)

1.05 (0.85, 1.26)

CT

1.09 (0.87, 1.47)

1.08 (0.78, 1.56)

1.02 (0.65, 1.62)

858.67 (1.37, 2175540531.83)

0.73 (0.57, 0.91)

0.88 (0.7, 1.09)

0.84 (0.65, 1.1)

EUS

0.99 (0.72, 1.34)

0.93 (0.59, 1.4)

782.97 (1.24, 1974009559.35)

0.92 (0.65, 1.31)

1.11 (0.81, 1.54)

1.05 (0.76, 1.56)

1.25 (0.92, 1.78)

MRCP

0.94 (0.68, 1.25)

789.08 (1.24, 1979033060.55)

0.85 (0.46, 1.56)

1.03 (0.57, 1.86)

0.98 (0.54, 1.84)

1.17 (0.65, 2.14)

0.93 (0.56, 1.52)

sMRCP

842.17 (1.32, 2092796214.9)

0.87 (0.43, 1.7)

1.05 (0.52, 2.05)

1 (0.52, 1.92)

1.19 (0.58, 2.39)

0.94 (0.44, 1.97)

1.02 (0.41, 2.48)

MRI

  1. The risk estimates of sensitivity and specificity were presented as RR with 95% CI. Statistical significance was given in bold and established when the 95% CI did not cover 1. The risk of ICH comparisons should be read from left to right in lower left of chart(sensitivity), and it should be read from right to left in upper right of chart(specificity). RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval
  2. EUS ultrasonography; ERCP endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; MRI magnetic resonance imaging; CT computed tomography; US ultrasonography; MRCP magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; sMRCP secretin-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography