Table 1. Non-contrast-enhanced ultrasound (NEUS).

Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-

binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Non-significant differences are shaded gray.

Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference confidence interval met significance.

Positive
Comparison Comparison
Sensitivity % Predictive
NEUS Difference Difference
(95% CI) Value
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
% (95% CI)
71.1
37.3
(55.6, 77.6)
Lesions (26, 48.9)
n=3
< 20 mm n=14 I2=96.4
I2=68.2 -13.1
(93.1, 98.2) -35.4
(0, 80) (-31.4, -3.11)
(-51, -18)
84.3 p=0.01
72.7 p=2e-05
(75.9, 89.1) F1
Lesions (59, 83)
n=3
> 20mm n=13 I2=99.3
I2=96.5
(98.4, 99.7)
(64.3, 99)
91.4
68.4
(66, 91.4)
Studies performed (58.3, 76.3)
n=2
in Asia n=13 I2=95.5 2
I =93.2
(88.5, 98.4) 14.2 16.5
(0, 93.2)
(-1.16, 28.2) (-12.5, 25.9)
54.1 74.8
p=0.04 p=0.2
Studies not (43.1, 66.7) (68.8, 80.5)
performed in Asia n=16 n=8
I2=97 I2=86.9
(90.6, 99) (49.2, 94)
78.3
48.9
(66.5, 88.8)
Explant-only (38.4, 58.4)
n=7
studies n=14 I2=95.1
-21.8 I2=96 1.46
(86.8, 98.1)
(-34.4, -8.4) (77.4, 98) (-9.74, 12.3)
70.7 p=0.0005 76.8 p=0.4
Non-explant-only (61, 77.8) (76.2, 77.8)
studies n=15 I2=98.7 n=3
(94.7, 99.6) I2=0
83.8
68.3
(76.2, 91.8)
Studies published (60.5, 76.2)
n=4
2006 n=13 I2=95.7
I2=95.9
(87.9, 98.4) 15 14.9
(69, 97.3)
(-0.514, 29.6) (4.6, 26.3)
68.9
53.3 p=0.03 p=0.0003
(60.6, 75.1)
Studies published (41.1, 66.7)
n=6
< 2006 n=16 I2=96.9 2
I =62
(90.3, 99)
(0, 86.5)
Table 2. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-

binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Non-significant differences are shaded gray.

Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference confidence interval met significance.

Positive
Comparison Comparison
Sensitivity % Predictive
CEUS Difference Difference
(95% CI) Value
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
% (95% CI)
67.0 89.6
Lesions (55.3, 75.8) (89.5, 89.6)
< 20 mm n=15 I2=92.6 n=2
(83.9, 96.5) -19 I2=0
86 (-32.5, -5.33) -
(73.6, 92.9) p=0.003
Lesions
n=9 -
> 20mm
I2=98.8
(78.3, 99.7)
84.9 91
Studies performed (80.9, 87.9) (87.6, 94)
in Asia n=36 I2=89.1 n=13 I2=87.9
3.33 8.32
(81.4, 94.3) (61.5, 96.1)
(-3.87, 12.5) (-0.308, 15)
82.7
81.6 p=0.2 p=0.03
Studies not (76.1, 89.7)
(72.4, 87.7) F1
performed in Asia n=4
n=22 I2=94.3
I2=69.4
(86.9, 97.3)
(0, 88.6)

Explant-only
- -
studies

83.8 - 89.3 -
Non-explant-only (79.4, 86.7) (85.7, 92.5)
studies n=59 I2=92.7 n=17 I2=89.6
(86.9, 96.3) (59.5, 97.7)
82.3 89.1
Studies published (76.9, 85.8) (85, 92.7)
2006 n=45 I2=94.2 n=12 I2=92.2
-6.95 -1.39
(89.7, 97.2) (64.1, 97.5)
(-13.2, -2.11) (-7.99, 8.19)
90.5
89.2 p=0.006 p=0.4
(79.3, 95.1)
Studies published (85.5, 92.2)
n=5
< 2006 n=14 I2=93.6
I2=81.9
(78.6, 97.8)
(16.7, 94.5)
Table 3. Contrast-enhanced multi-detector or helical computed tomography (CT) studies. Pooled per-lesion values are

empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Non-

significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference confidence interval

met significance.

Positive
Comparison Comparison
Sensitivity % Predictive
CT Difference Difference
(95% CI) Value
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
% (95% CI)
59.1 77.3
Lesions (53.9, 63.9) (67, 84.5)
< 20 mm n=54 I2=94.8 n=14 I2=92.2
-18.9
(91.6, 97.1) -27.8 (83.7, 96.7)
(-29.8, -11.2)
(-34.5, -20) 96.1
86.9 p=1e-05
p=<0.0001 (93.5, 98.9)
Lesions (79.8, 91)
n=8
> 20mm n=38 I2=99.4
I2=96
(97.7, 99.9)
(86.6, 98.6)
75.8 90
Studies performed (72.3, 79) (86.4, 92.2)
in Asia n=61 I2=92.4 6.29 n=29 I2=77.5 9.86
(89.8, 94.6) (0.182, 13.5) (52.1, 89.9) (4.46, 15.7)
69.5 p=0.03 80.1 p=0.0001
Studies not
(62.8, 74.4) (74.5, 84.3)
performed in Asia
n=45 I2=95.8 n=21 I2=84.9
(92, 97.9) (69.7, 92.1)
81.7
67.2
(75.2, 86.7)
Explant-only (57.5, 72.8)
n=20
studies n=30 I2=95.7
-8.33 I2=92 -6.72
(90.9, 98.3)
(-17.5, -1.48) (83.8, 96.3) (-13.5, -0.804)
75.5 p=0.01 p=0.02
88.4
(72.3, 78.5)
Non-explant-only (85.2, 90.9)
n=76
studies n=30 I2=93.9
I2=97
(84.9, 97.6)
(94.5, 98.7)
73.6 88.5
Studies published (70.3, 76.8) (85.0, 90.9)
2006 n=63 I2=93.8 n=33 I2=80.7
1.24 8.18
(90.8, 96.5) (63.7, 91)
(-5.06, 9.62) (1.67, 14.9)
80.3
72.3 p=0.4 p=0.006
(73.6, 85.7)
Studies published (64.2, 77.6)
n=17
< 2006 n=43 I2=96.1
I2=87
(93.3, 97.8)
(75.4, 92.2)
Table 4. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging without inclusion of hepatobiliary phase (GdMR). Pooled per-

lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using

bootstrap methods. Non-significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score

difference confidence interval met significance.

Positive
Comparison Comparison
Sensitivity % Predictive
GdMR Difference Difference
(95% CI) Value
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
% (95% CI)
63.8
87.5
(57.9, 69.7)
Lesions (77.0, 93.6)
n=34
< 20 mm n=10 I2=87.2
I2=95 -7.05
-25 (48.1, 96.8)
(86.3, 98.3) (-17.6, -0.529)
(-32.1, -17.5)
94.6 p=0.03
88.8 p<0.0001
(92.7, 98.5) F1
Lesions (84.1, 92.9)
n=6
> 20mm n=21 I2=97.1
I2=63.4
(94, 98.4)
(0, 96.3)
78.3 86.8
Studies performed (73.5, 82.1) (82.3, 90.5)
in Asia n=43 I2=90.3 4.71 n=21 I2=80.6 8
(85, 94.1) (-1.84, 10.5) (61.7, 90.8) (-0.803, 20.6)
73.6 p=0.07 78.8 p=0.08
Studies not
(69.4, 78.3) (66, 86.5)
performed in Asia
n=32 I2=93.7 n=15 I2=90.9
(75.3, 98.6) (79.6, 95.4)
74.5 73.0
Explant-only (70, 79) (56.9, 83.4)
studies n=19 I2=68.8 -3.09 n=10 I2=91.4 -14.5
(32.4, 84.9) (-8.71, 2.76) (73.3, 97) (-30, -3.14)
77.6 p=0.1 87.5 p=0.02
Non-explant-only (73.8, 81) (83.5, 90.7)
studies n=55 I2=95.3 n=26 I2=97.2
(90.5, 98.6) (89.8, 99.2)
78.0 88.8
Studies published (74.4, 81.5) (85, 91.9)
2006 n=46 I2=93.6 4.7 n=23 I2=75.3 14.3
(85.5, 97.7) (-1.83, 11.6) (49.9, 88) (4.88, 26.4)
73.3 p=0.08 74.5 p=0.002
Studies published (67.1, 78.6) (62.3, 83) F1
< 2006 n=29 I2=88.6 n=13 I2=91.1
(82.1, 92.3) (79.8, 96)
Table 5. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging utilizing the hepatobiliary agent gadoxetate. Pooled per-lesion

values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap

methods. Non-significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference

confidence interval met significance.

Positive
Comparison Comparison
Sensitivity % Predictive
GxMR Difference Difference
(95% CI) Value
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
% (95% CI)
94.1
83.6
(88.1, 98.1)
Lesions (78.6, 88.5)
n=7
< 20 mm n=21 I2=97.7 -14.4
I2=91
(80.8, 99.4) (-19.8, -9.1)
(19.9, 98.1) -
p=0.001
98.0
Lesions (95.1, 99.3)
-
> 20mm n=11 I2=95.2
(75.4, 98.6)
84.4 93.9
Studies performed (80.5, 87.3) (90.2, 96.2)
in Asia n=40 I2=88.4 n=23 I2=87.2
-1.72 -2.68
(80.9, 93.7) (56.3, 96.2)
(-10.9, 9.65) (-7.05, 1.34)
86.1 96.5
p=0.3 p=0.1
Studies not (73.8, 94) (66.3, 98.4)
performed in Asia n=8 n=4
I2=99.1 I2=80
(74.1, 99.8) (0, 96.7)
80.5 97.0
(69.6, 88.4) (94.2, 99.4)
Explant-only
n=6 n=5
studies -4.97 3.51
I2=94.9 I2=68.9
(-15.6, 4.55) (-0.354, 8.04)
(90.6, 97.2) (0, 89.1)
p=0.2 p=0.05
85.5 93.5
Non-explant-only (81.5, 88.5) (89.6, 96.0)
studies n=42 I2=97.6 n=22 I2=64.9
(90, 99.7) (19.5, 85.6)
94.4
84.9
(91.1, 96.5)
Studies published (81.1, 87.8)
n=26
2006 n=46 I2=95.6
-0.458 I2=84
(86.8, 98.7)
(-6.58, 18.4) (52.2, 95.1)
-
85.3 p=0.7
(65.9, 85.3)
Studies published 88.0
n=2
< 2006 2 n=1
I =79.6
(0, 91.7)
Table 6. Superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (SpMR). Pooled per-lesion values are

empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Non-

significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference confidence interval

met significance.

Positive
Comparison Comparison
Sensitivity % Predictive
SpMR Difference Difference
(95% CI) Value
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
% (95% CI)
69.1
Lesions (63.2, 78.0) 54.2
< 20 mm n=11 I2=86.9 n=1
-26.9
(2.43, 93.9)
(-33.9, -16.4)
96.1 -
p=0.003
(86.9, 98.7)
Lesions 100
n=8
> 20mm n=1
I2=97.2
(29.6, 99.2)
79.6 88.8
Studies performed (72.5, 83.8) (82.0, 93.0)
in Asia n=25 I2=93.9 n=14 I2=87.8
-0.0952 18.9
(84.6, 98.1) (64.2, 96.1)
(-12, 13.5) (-4.53, 43.8)
79.7 69.9
p=0.4 p=0.1
Studies not (64.7, 89.1) (47.9, 69.9)
F1
performed in Asia n=9 n=2
I2=97.1 I2=96.4
(89, 99) (0, 98.5)
91.1 84.5
(86.2, 95.2) (59.4, 94.4)
Explant-only
n=8 n=5
studies 14.6 -2.56
I2=82.2 I2=92
(7.9, 22.8) (-22.9, 10.1)
(41.2, 92.8) (0, 98.6)
p=2e-05 p=0.4
76.4 87
Non-explant-only (69.6, 81.5) (79.3, 92.5)
studies n=26 I2=93.3 n=11 I2=94.5
(85.7, 96.8) (75.9, 99.5)
80.6 93.3
(70.6, 86.2) (88.7, 96.5)
Studies published
n=16 n=8
2006
I2=95 2.02 I2=68.5 13.6
(84.5, 98.6) (-8.54, 11.9) (0, 89.1) (4.54, 26)
p=0.3 79.7 p=0.003
78.5
(67.6, 87.8) F1
Studies published (69.7, 84.5)
n=8
< 2006 n=18 I2=94.6 2
I =90.4
(86.2, 98.3)
(60, 95.8)
Table 7. Overall inter-modality sensitivity overall comparison. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a

beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of

differences between modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray.

Overall Comparison GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS

77.5
-8.1 -3.0 3.9 -6.9 18.2
(73.1, 79.3)
(-12.9, -3.9) (-8.8, 3.1) (-1.1, 7.7) (-11.9, -2.5) (8.4, 25.3)
GdMR n=75
p=0.0009 p=0.1 p=0.08 p=0.001 p=0.0003
I2=93.1
(87.6, 97.2)
85.6
5.1 12.0 1.2 26.3
(81.1, 87.7)
(-0.4, 11.6) (7.2, 16.2) (-3.5, 6.1) (16.8, 33.8)
GxMR n=48
p=0.04 p<0.0001 p=0.4 p<0.0001
I2=95.5
(86.6, 98.7)
80.5 6.9 -3.9 21.2
(73.6, 83.9) (0.3, 12.1) (-10.5, 1.9) (10.5, 29.1)
SpMR
n=34 I2=96.2 p=0.02 p=0.08 p=2e-05
(91.3, 98.2)
73.6
-10.8 14.3
(69.7, 76)
(-15.2, -5.8) (5.1, 21.9)
CT n=106
p=1e-05 p=0.001
I2=94.2
(91.5, 96.4)
84.4
-25.1
(79.4, 86.7)
(-32.7, -15.6)
CEUS n=59
2 p<0.0001
I =92.7 (86.9,
96.3)
59.3
(51.3, 67.1)
NEUS n=29
I2=96.7
(92.9, 98.8)
Table 8. Inter-modality positive predictive value overall comparison. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates

using a beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are

estimations of differences between modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1

indicate that the F1 score difference confidence interval met significance.

Overall Comparison GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS

83.6
-10.6 -5.74
(77.2, 87.5) -2.78 -2.22 6.22
(-17.3, -5.8) (-12.8, -0.5)
GdMR n=36 (-11, 5.2) (-8.6, 2.9) (-3.7, 13.9)
p<0.0001 p=0.03
I2=89.8 p=0.2 p=0.2 p=0.08
F1 F1
(80.2, 95.6)
94.2
7.82 8.38 16.8
(90.9, 96.3) 4.86
(2.0, 15.9) (4.6, 12.4) (8.6, 23.7)
GxMR n=27 (0.4, 8.9)
p=0.008 p=1e-05 p=3e-05
I2=84.4 p=0.01
F1 F1 F1
(54.2, 95.1)
86.4 -2.96 9
0.566
(77.9, 91.4) (-11.6, 3.2) (-2.1, 17.3)
SpMR (-7.1, 7.0)
n=16 I2=84.2 p=0.2 p=0.03
p=0.4
(57.2, 92.7) F1 F1
85.8 -3.52 -8.44
(82.4, 88.4) (-8.2, 0.7) (0.3, 15.6)
CT
n=50 I2=87.8 p=0.06 p=0.01
(80.6, 92.8) F1 F1
89.3
-12
(85.7, 92.5)
(-19.2, -3.6)
CEUS n=17
2 p=0.001
I =89.6 (59.5,
F1
97.7)
77.4
(71.1, 85.5)
NEUS
n=10 I2=94.5
(41.1, 97.6)
Table 9. Inter-modality sensitivity comparison for lesions < 20 mm in size. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences

between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence

intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between modalities.

Non-significant differences are shaded gray.

Lesions
GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS
< 20 mm
63.8
(57.9, 69.7) -19.8 -5.3 4.73 -3.18 26.5
GdMR n=34 (-27.3, -12) (-14.8, 3.7) (-2.8, 12.5) (-13.9, 9.5) (14.0, 39.7)
I2=95 p<0.0001 p=0.1 p=0.1 p=0.3 p=5e-05
(86.3, 98.3)
83.6
(78.6, 88.5) 14.5 24.5 16.6 46.3
GxMR n=21 (5.1, 22.5) (17.6, 31.7) (6.3, 29) (33.7, 58.7)
I2=97.7 p=0.0008 p<0.0001 p=0.0009 p<0.0001
(80.8, 99.4)
69.1
10 2.12 31.8
(63.2, 78.0)
SpMR (2.0, 19.5) (-8.8, 16.3) (18.7, 45.7)
n=11 I2=86.9
p=0.01 p=0.4 p<0.0001
(2.43, 93.9)
59.1
-7.91 21.8
(53.9, 63.9)
CT (-18.6, 3.8) (9.2, 34.2)
n=54 I2=94.8
p=0.08 p=0.0005
(91.6, 97.1)
67
(55.3, 75.8) 29.7
CEUS n=15 (13.8, 44.3)
2
I =92.6 (83.9, p=0.0001
96.5)
37.3
(26.0, 48.9)
NEUS
n=14 I2=96.4
(93.1, 98.2)
Table 10. Inter-modality positive predictive value comparison for lesions < 20 mm in size. Off-diagonal entries are estimations

of differences between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model.

Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between

modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference

confidence interval met significance.

Lesions
GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS
< 20 mm
87.5
-6.6 16.4
(77, 93.6) 10.2 -2.08
(-17.3, 1.08) (3.0, 29.7)
GdMR n=10 (-1.2, 21.8) (-12.4, 4.02)
2 p=0.07 p=0.003
I =87.2 p=0.04 p=0.3
F1 F1
(48.1, 96.8)
94.1
16.8 4.55 23
(88.1, 98.1)
(8.03, 27.9) (-1.5, 8.5) (13.2, 37.7)
GxMR n=7
p=0.0003 p=0.04 p=9e-05
I2=91
F1 F1 F1
(19.9, 98.1)
54.2
SpMR n=1

77.3
-12.3 6.17
(67, 84.5)
CT (-22.4, -5) (-7.5, 20.4)
n=14 I2=92.2
p=0.0006 p=0.2
(83.7, 96.7)
89.6 18.5
(89.5, 89.6) (12.0, 34.1)
CEUS
n=2 p<0.0001
I2=0 F1
71.1
(55.6, 77.6)
NEUS n=3
I2=68.2
(0, 80)
Table 11. Inter-modality sensitivity comparison for explant-only studies. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences

between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence

intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between modalities.

Non-significant differences are shaded gray.

Explant only GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS

74.5
(70, 79) -6 -16.6 7.3 25.6
GdMR n=19 (-15.6, 5.61) (-22.8, -10) (0.17, 17.8) (14.9, 36.8)
I2=68.8 p=0.1 p<0.0001 p=0.04 p<0.0001
(32.4, 84.9)
80.5
(69.6, 88.4) -10.6 13.3 31.6
GxMR n=6 (-22.2, -1.05) (2.3, 26.3) (17.5, 45.1)
I2=94.9 p=0.02 p=0.01 p=1e-05
(90.6, 97.2)
91.1
(86.2, 95.2) 23.9 42.1
SpMR n=8 (16.7, 34.6) (31.6, 53.6)
2
I =82.2 p<0.0001 p<0.0001
(41.2, 92.8)
67.2
(57.5, 72.8) 18.2
CT n=30 (4.7, 29.6)
I2=95.7 p=0.002
(90.9, 98.3)

CEUS

48.9
(38.4, 58.4)
NEUS
n=14 I2=95.1
(86.8, 98.1)
Table 12. Inter-modality positive predictive value comparison for explant-only studies. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of

differences between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model.

Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between

modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score difference

confidence interval met significance.

Explant only GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS

73.0
-24.0
(56.9, 83.4) -11.5 -8.7 -5.3
(-40.5, -13.1)
GdMR n=10 (-29.8, 8.8) (-24.7, 3.43) (-24.8, 9.3)
2 p=0.009
I =91.4 p=0.1 p=0.1 p=0.3
F1
(73.3, 97)
97.0
12.5 15.3 18.7
(94.2, 99.4)
(2.02, 37.8) (9.36, 22.4) (5.11, 30.3)
GxMR n=5
p=0.03 p=0.01 p=0.01
I2=68.9
F1 F1
(0, 89.1)
84.5
6.21
(59.4, 94.4) 2.79
(-18.1, 20.5)
SpMR n=5 (-16.5, 15.4)
p=0.2
I2=92 p=0.3
F1
(0, 98.6)
81.7
3.42
(75.2, 86.7)
(-8.6, 16.2)
CT n=20
p=0.3
I2=92
F1
(83.8, 96.3)

CEUS

78.3
(66.5, 88.8)
NEUS n=7
I2=96
(77.4, 98)
Table 13. Inter-modality sensitivity comparison for studies published in or after 2006. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of

differences between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model.

Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between

modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray.

Studies published
GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS
2006
78.0
(74.4, 81.5) -6.8 -2.53 4.45 -4.26 9.73
GdMR n=46 (-11.5, -1.86) (-9.6, 6.8) (-0.4, 9.2) (-9.4, 1.9) (1.01, 18.3)
I2=93.6 p=0.003 p=0.3 p=0.03 p=0.07 p=0.01
(85.5, 97.7)
84.9
(81.1, 87.8) 4.29 11.3 2.57 16.6
GxMR n=46 (-2.8, 13.3) (6.5, 15.7) (-2.5, 8.5) (7.8, 24.8)
I2=95.6 p=0.2 p<0.0001 p=0.2 p=1e-05
(86.8, 98.7)
80.6
(70.6, 86.2) 6.98 -1.72 12.3
SpMR n=16 (-2.2, 13.9) (-10.6, 6.3) (0.1, 21.8)
I2=95 p=0.04 p=0.4 p=0.01
(84.5, 98.6)
73.6
-8.7 5.28
(70.3, 76.8)
CT (-13.6, -2.8) (-3.3, 13.8)
n=63 I2=93.8
p=0.001 p=0.1
(90.8, 96.5)
82.3
(76.9, 85.8) 14
CEUS n=45 (4.2, 22.4)
I2=94.2 (89.7, p=7e-04
97.2)
68.3
(60.5, 76.2)
NEUS
n=13 I2=95.7
(87.9, 98.4)
Table 14. Inter-modality positive predictive value comparison for studies published in or after 2006. Off-diagonal entries are

estimations of differences between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial

model. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences

between modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score

confidence interval met significance.

Studies published
GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS
2006
88.8
-5.6 -0.3 5.1
(85, 91.9) -4.5 0.3
(-9.9, -1.25) (-5.6, 4.7) (-5.04, 12.9)
GdMR n=23 (-9.62, 0.60) (-4.01, 4.92)
2 p=0.006 p=0.5 p=0.1
I =75.3 p=0.05 p=0.4
F1 F1 F1
(49.9, 88)
94.4
5.9 10.6
(91.1, 96.5) 1.1 5.3
(2.12, 9.85) (0.638, 18.1)
GxMR n=26 (-3.64, 5.56) (0.385, 9.68)
p=0.002 p=0.01
I2=84 p=0.3 p=0.01
F1 F1
(52.2, 95.1)
93.3
4.8 9.5
(88.7, 96.5) 4.2
(0.279, 9.76) (-0.57, 17.5)
SpMR n=8 (-1.25, 9.54)
p=0.03 p=0.02
I2=68.5 p=0.06
F1 F1
(0, 89.1)
88.5 -0.6 4.7
(85, 90.9) (-5.72, 3.9) (-5.65, 12.1)
CT
n=33 I2=80.7 p=0.4 p=0.2
(63.7, 91) F1 F1
89.1
5.3
(85, 92.7)
(5.6, 13.5)
CEUS n=12
p=0.1
I2=92.2 (64.1,
F1
97.5)
83.8
(76.2, 91.8)
NEUS n=4
2
I =95.9
(69.0, 97.3)
Table 15. Inter-modality sensitivity comparison for studies not originating in Asia. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences

between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence intervals were

calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between modalities. Non-significant

differences are shaded gray.

Studies not originating

GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS
in Asia
73.6
(69.4, 78.3) -12.5 -6.1 4.07 -7.96 19.5
GdMR n=32 (-21.6, 0.1) (-16.6, 8.8) (-2.4, 12.1) (-15.6, 1.9) (6.6, 31.8)
I2=93.7 p=0.01 p=0.1 p=0.1 p=0.03 p=0.002
(75.3, 98.6)
86.1
(73.8, 94.0) 6.44 16.6 4.53 32.0
GxMR n=8 (-7.7, 22.2) (5.1, 27.3) (-7.2, 17.0) (15.0, 45.9)
I2=99.1 p=0.2 p=0.003 p=0.2 p=4e-05
(74.1, 99.8)
79.7
(64.7, 89.1) 10.1 -1.91 25.5
SpMR n=9 (-3.2, 22.3) (-15.6, 11.7) (7.2, 40.6)
2
I =97.1 p=0.05 p=0.4 p=0.002
(89, 99)
69.5
-12 15.4
(62.8, 74.4)
CT (-21.3, -2.7) (1.6, 27.9)
n=45 I2=95.8
p=0.005 p=0.01
(92, 97.9)
81.6
(72.4, 87.7) 27.5
CEUS n=22 (12.1, 40.2)
I2=94.3 (86.9, p=0.0001
97.3)
54.1
(43.1, 66.7)
NEUS n=16
I2=97
(90.6, 99)
Table 16. Inter-modality positive predictive value comparison for studies not originating in Asia. Off-diagonal entries are estimations

of differences between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model. Confidence

intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between modalities. Non-

significant differences are shaded gray. Entries which include F1 indicate that the F1 score confidence interval met significance.

Studies not originating

GdMR GxMR SpMR CT CEUS NEUS
in Asia
78.8
-17.8
(66, 86.5) 8.88 -1.33 -3.9 3.9
(-31.1, -9.6)
GdMR n=15 (-18.8, 35.8) (-14.2, 8.0) (-18.7, 5.9) (-10.2, 13.3)
p=0.004
I2=90.9 p=0.3 p=0.5 p=0.3 p=0.2
F1
(79.6, 95.4)
96.5
16.4 21.7
(66.3, 98.4) 26.7 13.8
(11.1, 22.6) (14.7, 28.2)
GxMR n=4 (4.83, 50.3) (4.8, 20.3)
p=0.004 p=0.004
I2=80 p=0.003 p=0.004
F1 F1
(0, 96.7)
69.9
-12.8
(47.9, 69.9) -10.2 -4.9
(-39.4, 10.8)
SpMR n=2 (-35.0, 12.8) (-30.6, 18.3)
2 p=0.2
I =96.4 p=0.3 p=0.3
F1
(0, 98.5)
80.1 -2.6
5.3
(74.5, 84.3) (-12.3, 4.8)
CT (-2.8, 12.6)
n=21 I2=84.9 p=0.3
p=0.08
(69.7, 92.1) F1
82.7
7.9
(76.1, 89.7)
(0.8, 17.3)
CEUS n=4
p=0.03
I2=69.4
F1
(0, 88.6)
74.8
(68.8, 80.5)
NEUS n=8
I2=86.9
(49.2, 94)
Table 17. Inter-modality sensitivity comparison for studies with internal comparisons. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of

differences between modalities. Pooled per-lesion values are empirical Bayes estimates using a beta-binomial model.

Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap methods. Off-diagonal entries are estimations of differences between

modalities. Non-significant differences are shaded gray

Within study
SpMR CT
comparison
Within study GxMR
CT
Within study
comparison GdMR
(Gadoxetate) CT 81
comparison (65.5, 89.4) 8.7
83.8 SpMR n=9 (-8.0, 21.7)
GdMR 71.2
(79.3, 87.9) 8.08
13.9 I2=97.7 (90.5, p=0.1
GxMR
(64.8, 77.1)
n=18 (-0.7,
(7.3,19.5)
20.5) 99.2)
(Gadoxetate)
n=24(68.7,
I2=83.8 p=0.05
p<0.0001
I2=97.3
91.5) 72.3
(87, 99.2) (62, 81.4)
69.8 CT n=9
CT 63.174.6)
(64.5, I2=94.7
CT (52.6, 69.2)
n=18 (83.6, 97.8)
n=24
2
I =89.5
I2=95.1
(79.9, 94.6)
(87.7, 98.3)
Within study GxMR
CEUS
comparison (Gadoxetate)

Within study 81.7

GdMR CEUS
comparison (73.5, 91.9) 15.9
GxMR
n=6 (2.93, 29.4)
73.9 (Gadoxetate)
I2=14.3 p=0.007
(46.0, 85.6) 8.7 (0, 67.8)
GdMR n=4 (-14.4, 32.2)
I2=92.2 p=0.3 65.8
(0, 95.9) (56.1, 75)
CEUS n=6
65.3 I2=87.4
(44.1, 77.2) (51, 95.5)
CEUS n=4
I2=93.5
(0, 98.5)
Within study
CT CEUS
comparison

79.4
(71.2, 85.6) 0.393
CT n=14 (-10.3, 13.7)
I2=91.3 (83.7, p=0.5
95.6)

79
(66.4, 86.6)
CEUS n=14
I2=94.7
(86.2, 98)