The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize procedures to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors.
The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.
| Author/Year | Disease | Population (N) | Test (T) | Gold Standard (P) | Comparison | Time interval (T→P) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tawakol 2016 | Any relapse | 111 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological or clinical follow-up | Computed tomography | ≥ 6 months |
| Hynninen 2013 | Peritoneal | 41 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological | Computed tomography | Up to 2 weeks |
| Signorelli 2013 | Pelvic/Aortic lymph node | 68 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological | _ | Not available |
| Risum 2009 | Any relapse | 60 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological or clinical follow-up | Computed tomography | 3 months |
| Sebastian 2008 | Any relapse | 53 | PET/CT | Clinical follow-up | Computed tomography | ≥ 4 months |
| Mangili 2007 | Any relapse | 32 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological or clinical follow-up | Computed tomography | Not available |
| Simcock 2006 | Any relapse | 56 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological or clinical follow-up | _ | 6 months |
| Sironi 2004 | Pelvic/Abdominal relapse | 31 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological | _ | 3-11 days |
| Bristow 2003 | Relapse ≥ 1 cm | 22 | PET/CT | Anatomopathological | _ | Up to 30 days |
| Author/Year | Sensitivity | Specificity | True + | False + | False - | True - |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET X Anatomopathological | ||||||
| Tawakol 2016 | 0.959 | 0.923 | 93 | 3 | 4 | 36 |
| Hynninen 2013 | 0.912 | 0.857 | 31 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Signorelli 2013 | 0.833 | 0.982 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 55 |
| Risum 2009 | 0.976 | 0.9 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Sebastian 2008 | 0.974 | 0.8 | 37 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| Mangili 2007 | 0.897 | 0.667 | 26 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Simcock 2006 | 0.868 | 0.667 | 46 | 1 | 7 | 2 |
| Sironi 2004 | 0.529 | 0.857 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 12 |
| Bristow 2003 | 0.833 | 0.75 | 15 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| PET x CT | ||||||
| Tawakol 2016 | 0.835 | 0.59 | 81 | 16 | 16 | 23 |
| Hynninen 2013 | 0.794 | 0.714 | 27 | 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Risum 2009 | 0.976 | 0.9 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Sebastian 2008 | 0.921 | 0.8 | 35 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Mangili 2007 | 0.645 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 11 | 1 |
| Author/Year | Patient selection | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Questions | Risk of bias | |||
| Were the patients consecutive or random? | Was case-control avoided? | Were unnecessary exclusions avoided? | Did the selection of patients introduce a bias? | |
| Tawakol 2016 | Yes | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Hynninen 2013 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Signorelli 2013 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Risum 2009 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Sebastian 2008 | Yes | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Mangili 2007 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Simcock 2006 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Sironi 2004 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Bristow 2003 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Author/Year | Test (PET/CT) | Gold Standard | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Questions | Risk of bias | Questions | Risk of bias | |||
| Was the PET interpreted without the knowledge of the outcome of the gold standard? | If a threshold was used, was it predetermined? | Is it possible that the interpretation of the PET introduced a bias? | Did the gold standard supposedly correctly classify the presence/absence of the disease? | Was the gold standard conducted/ interpreted without knowledge of the PET results? | Is it possible that the conduct or interpretation of the gold standard introduced a bias? | |
| Tawakol 2016 | No | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Hynninen 2013 | Yes | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Signorelli 2013 | Yes | No | ☹ | Yes | Yes | ☺ |
| Risum 2009 | No | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Sebastian 2008 | Yes | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Mangili 2007 | No | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Simcock 2006 | Yes | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Sironi 2004 | Yes | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
| Bristow 2003 | Yes | No | ☹ | Yes | No | ☹ |
