Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Circulating Tumor Cells in Renal Cell Cancer: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

Figure legends Figure 1. Results of quality evaluation by using QUADAS-2 scale. Figure 2. Flowchart for records selection process of the meta-analysis (According to PRISMA template: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal. Pmed 1000097) Figure 3. Diagnostic accuracy forest plots: Forest plots of total sensitivity (A) and specificity (B) in the above figure respectively, and random effect model was applied to all above the data synthesis Figure 4. Deeks' funnel plot for publication bias of meta-analysis about diagnostic accuracy Figure 5. Forest plots of the relationship between CTC-positivity and disease stage Figure 6. The genic expression diagram of CA9 and CD147 (According to the GEPIA online tools: Tang Z, Li C, Kang B, et al (2017) GEPIA: a web server for cancer and normal gene expression profiling and interactive analyses. Nucleic Acids Res 45(W1): W98–W102. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx247) Tables Table 1. Summary of eligible studies Table 2. Meta regression of diagnostic accuracy