Meta-Analysis Agreement

Vote counting: The method of counting votes, unlike the meta-analysis, does not provide a quantitative summary of primary school results, but is used to draw conclusions on a number of studies comparing the number of studies that have yielded significant results with the number of studies that do not report significant or negative results. In summary, our meta-analysis is the first to examine and summarize evidence of a match between MRI and tumor pathological measurements according to THE NACs, highlighting the methodological questions that have so far excluded the conclusions of the literature. Our work suggests that irmological measurements of pathological tumor size are slightly overestimated, but LOA are large enough to be of potential clinical importance. Few studies have compared MDs between tests and pathology, but U.S. performance appeared to be comparable to MRI; Worse agreement was observed during mammography and clinical examination. Although many studies have addressed these issues, most studies have reported pearsons or Spearman correlation coefficients. These measures are unsuitable for evaluation of the agreement and have contributed to uncertainty about the potential role of MRI. Other studies are warranted and use the Bland-Altman approach to assess MRI consent to pathology and also assess compliance with the pathology of alternative tests; In addition, we recommended data presentation methods to assess the validity of test comparisons. The percentages of the agreement and the resulting underestimation are limited, but may provide useful data to supplement Bland-Altman`s analyses. Similarly, CCIs can complement these analyses, but correlations between Pearson and Spearman should be avoided. Studies on the consistency between imaging size and pathological size have inherent constraints. Although pathology is considered a „gold standard,“ a large number of potential errors in pathological measurement have been identified (Lagios, 2005; Provencher et al, 2012; Tucker, 2012), which means that abnormalities can occur with the pathology, even if the size of the residual tumor is accurately evaluated before the operation.

For example, pathological diameters are probably overestimated when measured using a combination of tumor fragments or cut and cross-cut samples (Lagios, 2005). There may also be errors in the orientation of intact samples, which allows the tumor`s diameter to be measured with imaging and pathology at the same level (Provencher et al. 2012), especially where the pathologist does not have three-dimensional imaging data (Weatherall et al. 2001; Tucker, 2012; This could lead to pathological measures that underestimate the longest diameter of irregularly shaped tumors (Lagios, 2005).