***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included 45 studies, and based on the criteria for PET-CT positivity, we categorised the included studies into three groups: Activity > background (18 studies, N = 2823, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 679/2328), SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (12 studies, N = 1656, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 465/1656), and Other/mixed (15 studies, N = 1616, prevalence of N2 to N3 nodes = 400/1616). None of the studies reported (any) adverse events. Under-reporting generally hampered the quality assessment of the studies, and in 30/45 studies, the applicability of the study populations was of high or unclear concern. The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the 'Activity > background PET-CT positivity criterion were 77.4% (95% CI 65.3 to 86.1) and 90.1% (95% CI 85.3 to 93.5), respectively, but the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space showed a wide prediction region. This indicated high between-study heterogeneity and a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the overall estimate of sensitivity was especially susceptible to selection bias; reference standard bias; clear definition of test positivity; and to a lesser extent, index test bias and commercial funding bias, with lower combined estimates of sensitivity observed for all the low 'Risk of bias' studies compared with the full analysis. The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the SUVmax ≥ 2.5 PET-CT positivity criterion were 81.3% (95% CI 70.2 to 88.9) and 79.4% (95% CI 70 to 86.5), respectively.In this group, the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space also showed a very wide prediction region. This indicated very high between-study heterogeneity, and there was a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a clear lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that both overall accuracy estimates were marginally sensitive to flow and timing bias and commercial funding bias, which both lead to slightly lower estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity analyses showed that the accuracy estimates were significantly influenced by country of study origin, percentage of participants with adenocarcinoma, (¹⁸F)-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) dose, type of PET-CT scanner, and study size, but not by study design, consecutive recruitment, attenuation correction, year of publication, or tuberculosis incidence rate per 100,000 population. This review has shown that accuracy of PET-CT is insufficient to allow management based on PET-CT alone. The findings therefore support National Institute for Health and Care (formally 'clinical') Excellence (NICE) guidance on this topic, where PET-CT is used to guide clinicians in the next step: either a biopsy or where negative and nodes are small, directly to surgery. The apparent difference between the two main makes of PET-CT scanner is important and may influence the treatment decision in some circumstances. The differences in PET-CT accuracy estimates between scanner makes, NSCLC subtypes, FDG dose, and country of study origin, along with the general variability of results, suggest that all large centres should actively monitor their accuracy. This is so that they can make reliable decisions based on their own results and identify the populations in which PET-CT is of most use or potentially little value.
Output:

We included 45 studies, and based on the criteria for a positive PET-CT scan, we performed two main analyses. In the 18 studies (2823 participants) in the Activity > background group, PET-CT was found to accurately identify 77.4% (95% CI 65.3 to 86.1) of the participants with NSCLC spread beyond the N1 nodes and 90.1% (95% CI 85.3 to 93.5) of the participants without spread beyond the N1 nodes. In the 12 studies (1656 participants) in the SUVmax of ≥ 2.5 group, PET-CT accurately identified 81.3% (95% CI 70.2 to 88.9) of the participants with spread beyond the N1 nodes and 79.4% (95% CI 70 to 86.5) of the participants without spread beyond the N1 nodes. However, the results varied a lot between the studies in each analysis, and the quality and size of the studies themselves, country of study origin, percentage of participants with adenocarcinoma, FDG dose, and type of PET-CT scanner influenced the results. We believe that the results of this review show that the accuracy of PET-CT is insufficient to allow management based on PET-CT alone.