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

<b>Figure legends</b><b></b> <b>Figure 1.</b> Results of quality evaluation by using QUADAS-2 scale. <b>Figure 2. </b>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) <b>Figure 3. </b>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<b></b> <b>Figure 4.</b> Deeks' funnel plot for publication bias of meta-analysis about diagnostic accuracy <b>Figure 5. </b>Forest plots of the relationship between CTC-positivity and disease stage <b>Figure 6. </b>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<b>.</b> <i>Nucleic Acids Res 45</i>(W1): W98–W102. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx247) <b>Tables</b> <b>Table 1.</b> Summary of eligible studies <b>Table 2. </b>Meta regression of diagnostic accuracy