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