Fig 1.
Study flow diagram.
Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies.
Fig 2.
Risk of bias and applicability concerns graph: Review authors’ judgments about each domain presented as percentages across included studies.
Fig 3.
Risk of bias and applicability concerns summary.
Fig 4.
Forest plot of CTP for detection of ischemic stroke.
The plot shows study-specific estimates of sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals). The studies are ordered according to whether recruitment was prospective or not, and sensitivity. FN: false negative; FP: false positive; TN: true negative; TP: true positive.
Fig 5.
Summary ROC Plot of CTP for detecting ischemic stroke.
The circle size represents the sample size of the corresponding study.
Fig 6.
Forest plot of CTP and NCCT for detection of ischemic stroke.
Fig 7.
Summary ROC Plot of CTP and NCCT for detecting ischemic stroke.
Each ellipse on the plot represents the study estimate of CTP. Each diamond represents the study estimate of NCCT. Red and black solid circles represent the summary sensitivity and specificity for NCCT and CTP respectively, and this summary point is surrounded by a 95% confidence region (dotted line). Red and black solid lines represent HSROC curve of NCCT and CTP respectively.
Fig 8.
Forest plot of CTP and CTA for detection of ischemic stroke.
Fig 9.
Summary ROC Plot of CTP and CTA for detecting ischemic stroke.
Each ellipse on the plot represents the study estimate of CTP. Each diamond represents the study estimate of CTA. Red and black solid circles represent the summary sensitivity and specificity for CTA and CTP respectively, and these summary points are surrounded by a 95% confidence region (dotted line). Red and black solid lines represent HSROC curve of CTA and CTP respectively.
Table 2.
Accuracy of CTP, NCCT and CTA in detection acute posterior circulation stroke.
Table 3.
Subgroup analyses in different study design and time from symptom onset to CTP acquisition.