Table 2 Accuracy of reports comparing FSE of margins results with final histopathology.

From: Intraoperative frozen section examination for penile cancer surgery: a systematic review

Study

Year

FSE (n)

Atypical

TP

FP

FN

TN

Sensitivity% (95% CI)

Specificity% (95% CI)

PPV% (95% CI)

NPV (95% CI)

Accuracy%

Li et al. [18]

2011

32

0

0

0

0

32

N/R

100

N/R

100

N/R

(89.1–100)

(89.1–100)

Morelli et al. [19]

2009

15

0

0

0

0

15

N/R

100

N/R

100

N/R

(78.2–100)

(78.2–100)

Danakas et al. [20]

2018

31

3

3

0

2

23

60

100

100

92

92.9

(14.7–94.7)

(85.2–100)

(29.2–100)

(79.7–97.1)

(76.5–99.1)

Ellul et al. [21]

2020

169

1

20

1

0

147

100

99.3

95.2

100

99.4

(83.2–100)

(96.3–100)

(73.9–99.3)

(97.5–100)

(96.7–100)

O’Kelly et al. [22]

2017

19

0

0

0

1

18

N/R

100

N/R

94.7

94.7

(81.5–100)

(94.7–94.7)

(74.0–99.9)

Parnham et al. [23]

2018

171

0

10

0

7

154

58.8

100

100

95.7

96

(32.9–81.6)

(97.6–100)

(69.2–100)

(92.6–97.5)

(91.8–98.3)

Pang and Yunis et al. [24]

2024

137

3

16

0

8

110

66.7

100

100

93.2

94

(44.7–84.4)

(96.7–100)

(79.4–100)

(88.7–96.0)

(88.6–97.4)

  1. Analysis performed with MedCalc [15].
  2. FSE frozen section assessment, TP true positive, FP false positive, FN false negative, TN true negative, CI confidence interval, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, N/R not recorded.