Modern ultrasound techniques for diagnosing liver steatosis and fibrosis: A systematic review with a focus on biopsy comparison

Table 1 Scheuer to METAVIR conversion (fibrosis)

Scheuer	METAVIR
S0 (no fibrosis)	F0
S1 (portal fibrosis)	F1
S2 (periportal fibrosis, few septa)	F2
S3 (numerous septa without cirrhosis)	F3
S4 (cirrhosis)	F4

Table 2 2D-shear wave elastography diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Fang et al[25]	121	CLD	2D-SWE	F ≥ 2	0.884 (0.817-0.951)	Good
				F ≥ 3	0.926 (0.88-0.973)	Excellent
Aksakal et al[20]	103	CHB/CHC	2D-SWE	F ≥ 1	0.85 (0.75-0.94)	Good
				F ≥ 2	0.98 (0.94-1.00)	Excellent
				F ≥ 3	0.97 (0.94-1.00)	Excellent
				F ≥ 4	0.94 (0.89-1.00)	Excellent
Alcantara-Diaz et al[21]	227	Obesity	2D-SWE	F ≥ 2	0.54 (0.47-0.62)	Unacceptable
				F ≥ 3 (whole)	0.73 (0.60-0.87)	Acceptable
				F ≥ 3 (women)	0.82 (0.59-1.00)	Good
				F ≥ 3 (morbid obesity)	0.78 (0.61-0.99)	Acceptable
Imajo et al[66]	231	NAFLD	2D-SWE	F4	0.88 (0.83-0.92)	Good
Jocius et al[28]	72	CLD	2D-SWE	F1 vs F2-F4	0.75	Acceptable
				F1-F2 vs F3-F4	0.93	Excellent
				F1-F3 vs F4	0.91	Excellent
Lee et al[31]	87	CLD	2D-SWE	≥ F2	0.965 (0.895-0.993)	Excellent
				F4	0.994 (0.943-1.00)	Excellent
Manesis et al[32]	53	PBC	2D-SWE	F1	0.874	Good
				F2	0.853	Good
				F3	0.953	Excellent
				F4	0.953	Excellent
Martonik et al[33]	231	HBV/HCV	2D-SWE	F0-F1 vs ≥ F2	0.83	Good
				F2 vs ≥ F3	0.84	Good
				F3 vs F4	0.94	Excellent
Mendoza et al[34]	200	NAFLD	2D-SWE	≥ F2	0.83 (0.72-0.93)	Good
				≥ F3	0.84 (0.76-0.92)	Good
				F4	0.94 (0.89-0.99)	Excellent
Paisant et al[38]	788	Liver fibrosis	2D-SWE	>F2	0.825 (SD ± 0.006)	Good
				F4	0.880 (SD ± 0.006)	Good
Prieto Ortiz et al[68]	453	Liver fibrosis	2D-SWE	F > 1	0.75	Acceptable
				F > 2	0.83	Good
				F > 3	0.89	Good
				F = 4	0.94	Excellent
Seyrek et al[42]	146	CLD	2D-SWE	> F2	0.86 (0.75-0.96)	Good
				> F3	0.87 (0.78-0.97)	Good
				F2-F4	0.84 (0.76-0.92)	Good
				F4	0.93 (0.86-0.99)	Excellent
Sharpton et al[43]	114	CLD	2D-SWE	F2-F4	0.84 (0.76-0.92)	Good
				F3-F4	0.88 (0.81-0.96)	Good
				F4	0.93 (0.86-0.99)	Excellent
Soh et al[44]	69	AIH	2D-SWE	≥ F2	0.903 (0.807-0.961)	Excellent
				≥ F3	0.815 (0.703-0.898)	Good
				F4	0.854 (0.748-0.927)	Good
Song et al[45]	602	CHB	2D-SWE	≥ F1	0.807 (0.742-0.861)	Good
				≥ F2	0.868 (0.810-0.914)	Good
				≥ F3	0.855 (0.796-0.903)	Good
				F4	0.851 (0.791-0.900)	Good
Wang et al[47]	141	AIH-PBC	2D-SWE	F2-F4	0.748 (0.668-0.817)	Acceptable
				F3-F4	0.818 (0.745-0.878)	Good
				F4	0.879 (0.813-0.928)	Good
Yan et al[69]	148	AIH-PBC	2D-SWE	≥ F2	0.91 (0.85-0.96)	Excellent
				≥ F3	0.97 (0.94-0.99)	Excellent
				F4	0.96 (0.92-0.99)	Excellent
Yoo et al[52]	115	CLD	2D-SWE	F2	0.851 (0.773-0.911)	Good
				F3	0.917 (0.851-0.960)	Excellent
				F4	0.889 (0.817-0.940)	Good
Yamaoka et al[54]	116	CLD	2D-SWE	≥ F2	0.85 (0.773-0.911)	Good
				≥ F3	0.91 (0.81-0.97)	Excellent
				F4	0.88 (0.79-1.00)	Good
Zhou et al[64]	116	NAFLD	2D-SWE	≥ F2	0.86 (0.77-0.94)	Good
				≥ F3	0.89 (0.81-0.97)	Good
				F4	0.90 (0.79-1.00)	Good

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CLD: Chronic liver disease; SWE: Shear wave elastography; CHB: Chronic hepatitis B; CHC: Chronic hepatitis C; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; PBC: Primary biliary cholangitis; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV: Hepatitis C virus; AIH: Autoimmune hepatitis; PBC: Primary biliary cholangitis.

Table 3 2D-shear wave elastography diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Yoo et al[52]	203	CLD	2D-SWE LOGIQ E9	F2	0.910 (0.871-0.944)	Excellent
				F3	0.897 (0.844-0.939)	Good
				F4	0.931 (0.874-0.969)	Excellent
			2D-SWE LOGIQ S8	F2	0.908 (0.874-0.940)	Excellent
				F3	0.905 (0.864-0.954)	Excellent
				F4	0.931 (0.889-0.964)	Excellent
Kavak et al[29]	253	CHB	2D-SWE-MPG	F > 2	0.956 (0.920-0.991)	Excellent
				F > 3	0.978 (0.945-1.000)	Excellent
Garcovich et al[26]	253	CLD	2D-SWE-SSI	F ≥ 2	0.96 (0.93-0.99)	Excellent
				F ≥ 3	0.98 (0.97-1.00)	Excellent
				F4	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	Excellent
Cassinotto et al[23]	577	NAFLD	2D-SWE-SSI	F ≥ 2	0.84 (0.81-0.88)	Exclusion
				F ≥ 3	0.88 (0.84-0.91)	Excellent
				F4	0.86 (0.82-0.90)	Excellent

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CLD: Chronic liver disease; SWE: Shear wave elastography; CHB: Chronic hepatitis B; MPG: Propagation map guidance; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Table 4 Point-shear wave elastography diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Lee et al[31]	87	CLD	p-SWE	≥ F2	0.872 (0.777-0.937)	Good
				F4	0.886 (0.794-0.947)	Good
Fang et al[25]	121	CLD	p-SWE	≥ F2	0.855 (0.778-0.932)	Good
				≥ F3	0.890 (0.826-0.954)	Good
Saadi et al[41]	216	CLD	p-SWE	F0-F1	0.744 (0.67-0.82)	Acceptable
				F3	0.82 (0.74-0.89)	Good
				F4	0.95 (0.91-0.98)	Acceptable
Atzori et al[22]	160	CLD	p-SWE - Philips ElastPQ	F0/1	0.828 (0.762-0.895)	Good
				F3/4	0.812 (0.734-0.889)	Good
				F4	0.856 (0.753-0.938)	Good
Atzori et al[22]	160	CLD	p-SWE - Siemens VTQ	F0/1	0.741 (0.659-0.823)	Acceptable
				F3/4	0.782 (0.702-0.861)	Acceptable
				F4	0.826 (0.734-0.918)	Good
Roccarina et al[40]	671	NAFLD	p-SWE by ElastPQ	F > 1	0.835 (0.72-0.93)	Good
				F > 2	0.831 (0.78-0.90)	Good
				F > 3	0.864 (0.82-0.93)	Good
				F = 4	0.952 (0.92-0.99)	Excellent
Garcovich et al[26]	253	CLD	X + p-SWE	F ≥ 2	0.96 (0.93-0.99)	Excellent
				F ≥ 3	0.98 (0.97-1.00)	Excellent
				F4	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	Excellent

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CLD: Chronic liver disease; p-SWE: Point-shear wave elastography; VTQ: Virtual Touch^TM Quantification.

Table 5 Shear wave elastography diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Gatos et al[27]	152	CLD	SWE	F ≥ F1	0.9621	Excellent
				F ≥ F2	0.9931	Excellent
				F ≥ F3	0.9835	Excellent
				F = F4	0.9656	Excellent
				F0	0.995 (0.988-1.00)	Excellent
				F1	0.676 (0.589-0.763)	Unacceptable
				F2	0.507 (0.409-0.605)	Unacceptable
				F3	0.708 (0.621-0.795)	Good
				F4	0.932 (0.889-0.975)	Excellent
Laroia et al[30]	124	CLD	SWE	Combined F1 + F2	0.612 (0.516-0.708)	Unacceptable
				Combined F3 + F4	0.961 (0.933-0.990)	Excellent
Ogino e t al[37]	107	NAFLD	SWE	F2	0.88	Good
				F3	0.87	Good
				F4	0.92	Excellent
Zhang et al[70]	100	NAFLD	SWE	≥ 1	0.65 (0.54-0.76)	Unacceptable
				≥ 2	0.81 (0.71-0.91)	Good
				≥ 3	0.85 (0.74-0.96)	Good
				4	0.91 (0.79-1.00)	Excellent
Wang et al[49]	210	HCC	SWE	≥ F2	0.895 (0.842-0.947)	Good
				≥ F3	0.877 (0.826-0.927)	Good
				= F4	0.854 (0.803-0.905)	Good
Zougmoré et al[55]	476	CLD	SWE	≥ F2	0.91 (0.88-0.96)	Excellent
				≥ F3	0.93 (0.89-0.97)	Excellent
				≥ F4	0.96 (0.94-0.98)	Excellent
Kim et al[67]	60	NASH	SWE	≥ F1	0.777 (0.653-0.777)	Acceptable
				≥ F2	0.747 (0.611-0.854)	Acceptable
				≥ F3	0.861 (0.742-0.940)	Good
				≥ F4	0.846 (0.730-0.926)	Good
Yang et al[50]	106	CLD	SWE	F0 vs F1-3	0.91	Excellent
				F0-1 vs F2-4	0.84	Good
				F0-2 vs F3-4	0.79	Acceptable
				F0-3 vs F4	0.76	Acceptable

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CLD: Chronic liver disease; SWE: Shear wave elastography; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.

Table 6 Modified or specific shear wave elastography modalities’ diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Patidar et al[39]	127	Diffuse liver diseases	RT-SWE	F0-F1	0.867 (0.72-1)	Good
				F1-F2	0.955 (0.906-1	Excellent
				F2-F3	0.946 (0.883-1)	Excellent
				F3-F4	0.93 (0.633-1)	Excellent
Wang et al[48]	524	CHB	STQ	F > 4	0.86	Good
				F > 2	0.73	Acceptable
Taibbi et al[46]	56	NAFLD	SWE (10 measurements)	F2-F4	0.787 (0.646-0.927)	Acceptable
				F3-F4	0.797 (0.659-0.935)	Acceptable
			SWE (5 measurements)	F2-F4	0.809 (0.676-0.942)	Good
				F3-F4	0.809 (0.684-0.933)	Good
			SWE (3 measurements)	F2-F4	0.714 (0.560-0.869)	Acceptable
				F3-F4	0.736 (0.587-0.885)	Acceptable

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; RT-SWE: Real-time shear wave elastography; CHB: Chronic hepatitis B; STQ: Sound touch quantification; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; SWE: Shear wave elastography.

Table 7 Transient elastography diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Mendoza et al[34]	200	NAFLD	TE	≥ F2	0.76 (0.64-0.88)	Acceptable
				≥ F3	0.72 (0.63-0.82)	Acceptable
				F4	0.89 (0.78-1.00)	Good
Patidar et al[39]	127	Diffuse liver diseases	TE	F0-F1	0.824 (0.72-1)	Good
				F1-F2	0.935 (0.906-1)	Good
				F2-F3	0.964 (0.883-1)	Good
				F3-F4	0.979 (0.633-1)	Good
Seyrek et al[42]	146	CLD	TE	> F2	0.79 (0.65-0.94)	Acceptable
Taibbi et al[46]	56	NAFLD	TE	F2-F4	0.719 (0.572-0.867)	Acceptable
				F3-F4	0.799 (0.646-0.952)	Acceptable
Yoo et al[52]	115	CLD	TE	F2	0.859 (0.781-0.916)	Good
				F3	0.881 (0.807-0.934)	Good
				F4	0.938 (0.877-0.974)	Excellent
Kim et al[67]	60	NASH	TE	≥ F1	0.733 (0.603-0.839)	Acceptable
				≥ F2	0.828 (0.709-0.913)	Good
				≥ F3	0.869 (0.756-0.942)	Good
				≥ F4	0.891 (0.783-0.957)	Good

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; CLD: Chronic liver disease; SWE: Shear wave elastography; TE: Transient elastography; NASH: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Table 8 Vibration-controlled transient elastography diagnostic efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Cassinotto et al[23]	577	NAFLD	VCTE	F ≥ 2	0.80 (0.76-0.84)	Acceptable
				F ≥ 3	0.82 (0.78-0.86)	Good
				F4	0.85 (0.80-0.90)	Good
Gatos et al[27]	152	CLD	VCTE	F ≥ F1	0.9900	Excellent
				F ≥ F2	0.9767	Excellent
				F ≥ F3	0.9651	Excellent
				F = F4	0.9645	Excellent
Imajo et al[66]	231	NAFLD	VCTE	F4	0.87 (0.80-0.91)	Good
Nogami et al[36]	163	NAFLD	VCTE	≥ F2	0.855 (0.83-0.94)	Good
				≥ F3	0.925 (0.90-0.95)	Excellent
				F4	0.88 (0.87-0.89)	Good
Sharpton et al[43]	114	CLD	VCTE	F2-F4	0.86 (0.80-0.93)	Good
				F3-F4	0.91 (0.82-0.99)	Excellent
				F4	0.96 (0.91-1.00)	Excellent
Atzori et al[22]	160	CLD	VCTE	F0/1	0.810 (0.746-0.884)	Good
				F3/4	0.841 (0.771-0.910)	Good
				F4	0.939 (0.896-0.982)	Excellent
Damjanovska et al[24]	93	NAFLD	VCTE	F4	0.77 (0.66-0.88)	Acceptable
Mikolasevic et al[35]	179	NAFLD	VCTE	≥ F3	0.98	Excellent
				F4	0.98	Excellent
Roccarina et al[40]	671	NAFLD	VCTE	F > 1	0.792 (0.60-0.91)	Acceptable
				F > 2	0.849 (0.78-0.91)	Good
				F > 3	0.851 (0.79-0.91)	Good
				F = 4	0.911 (0.83-0.96)	Excellent
Zougmoréet al[55]	476	CLD	VCTE	≥ F2	0.86 (0.81-0.91)	Good
				≥ F3	0.89 (0.85-0.93)	Good
				≥ F4	0.90 (0.86-0.94)	Good

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; CLD: Chronic liver disease; VCTE: Vibration-controlled transient elastography.

Table 9 Diagnostic efficacy of other sound touch elastography techniques (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Ogino et al[37]	107	NAFLD	S-map	F2	0.75	Acceptable
				F3	0.80	Acceptable
				F4	0.85	Good
Gatos et al[27]	152	CLD	STE	F ≥ F1	0.9683	Excellent
				F ≥ F2	0.9834	Excellent
				F ≥ F3	0.9763	Excellent
				F = F4	0.9509	Excellent
Wang et al[48]	524	CHB	STE	F > 4	0.87	Good
				F > 2	0.76	Acceptable
Yang et al[51]	102	AILD	STE	F2	0.82 (0.73-0.89)	Good
				F3	0.87 (0.78-0.93)	Good
				F4	0.91 (0.83-0.96)	Excellent
Yang et al[50]	106	CLD	STE	F0 vs F1-3	0.92	Excellent
				F0-1 vs F2-4	0.84	Good
				F0-2 vs F3-4	0.77	Acceptable
				F0-3 vs F4	0.71	Acceptable
Wang et al[49]	210	HCC	SWD	≥ F2	0.857 (0.784-0.920)	Good
				≥ F3	0.815 (0.757-0.874)	Good
				F4	0.791 (0.730-0.852)	Acceptable

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; CLD: Chronic liver disease; CHB: Chronic hepatitis B; STE: Sound touch elastography; AILD: Autoimmune liver diseases; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; SWD: Shear wave dispersion.

Table 10 Diagnostic efficacy of sound touch elastography and related techniques (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for fibrosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease/diagnose	Diagnostic method	Fibrosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Gatos et al[27]	152	CLD	ViTE	F ≥ F1	0.9481	Excellent
				F ≥ F2	0.9698	Excellent
				F ≥ F3	0.9846	Excellent
				F = F4	0.9524	Excellent
Yang et al[50]	106	CLD	ViTE	F0 vs F1-3	0.88	Good
				F0-1 vs F2-4	0.84	Good
				F0-2 vs F3-4	0.80	Acceptable
				F0-3 vs F4	0.80	Acceptable
Yu et al[62]	85	T2DM	FibroTouch	≥ F2	0.76 (0.66-0.86)	Acceptable
				≥ F3	0.81 (0.71-0.91)	Good
				≥ F4	0.92 (0.85-1.00	Excellent
Qu et al[60]	237	NAFLD	FibroTouch	≥ F2	0.71	Acceptable
				≥ F3	0.71	Acceptable
				F4	0.77	Acceptable

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CLD: Chronic liver disease; ViTE: Visual transient elastography; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; T2DM: Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Table 11 Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound techniques (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for steatosis detection)

Ref.	Number of patients	Disease	Diagnostic method	Steatosis stage	AUROC (CI)	Assessment
Nogami et al[36]	163	NAFLD	VCTE (CAP)	≥ S1	0.89 (0.73-0.95)	Good
				S2	0.77 (0.82-0.82)	Acceptable
				S3	0.69 (0.75-0.75)	Unacceptable
Liu et al[59]	100	NAFLD	ATI	S ≥ 1	0.762	Acceptable
				S ≥ 2	0.774	Acceptable
				S ≥ 3	0.784	Acceptable
			SWE	S ≥ 1	0.764	Acceptable
				S ≥ 2	0.783	Acceptable
				S ≥ 3	0.802	Good
Qu et al[60]	237	NAFLD	UAP	S1	0.88	Good
				S2	0.93	Excellent
				S3	0.88	Good
Zhao et al[65]	34	MAFLD	NLV	S ≥ 1	0.875 (0.716-0.963)	Good
				S ≥ 2	0.735 (0.556-0.871)	Acceptable
				S ≥ 3	0.583 (0.402-0.749)	Unacceptable
			NLV-SD	S ≥ 1	0.900 (0.748-0.976)	Good
				S ≥ 2	0.745 (0.567-0.878)	Acceptable
				S ≥ 3	0.603 (0.422-0.766)	Unacceptable
Kjaergaard et al[57]	137	ALD/NAFLD	B-mode ratio	S ≥ 1	0.79 (0.70-0.88)	Acceptable
				S ≥ 2	0.76 (0.66-0.85)	Acceptable
				S ≥ 3	0.74 (0.62-0.86)	Acceptable
Zhou et al[64]	139	NAFLD	2D-SWE	Steatohepatitis	0.88	Good
Yazdani et al[61]	49	NAFLD	SWA	S0 vs ≥ S1	0.99	Excellent
				≤ S1 vs ≥ S2	0.98	Excellent
				≤ S2 vs S3	0.93	Excellent
Yu et al[62]	85	MAFLD	CAP (FibroTouch)	S ≥ S1	0.84 (0.67-1.01)	Good
				S ≥ S2	0.88 (0.81-0.95)	Good
				S = S3	0.89 (0.82-0.95)	Good
Hsu et al[56]	28	CLD	ATI	S ≥ 1	0.97 (0.83-1.00)	Acceptable
				S ≥ 2	0.99 (0.86-1.00)	Acceptable
				S = 3	0.97 (0.82-1.00)	Acceptable
Kim et al[67]	60	NASH	HRI	≥ S2	0.871 (0.783-0.956)	Good
				≥ S3	0.851 (0.735-0.930)	Good
Kuroda et al[58]	202	NAFLD	2D-SWE + UGAP	≥ S1	0.89 (P < 0.05)	Good
				≥ S2	0.91 (P < 0.05)	Excellent
				S3	0.92 (P < 0.05)	Excellent
Welman et al[63]	76	Not specified or mixed	ATI	S1-S3	0.85 (0.75-0.91)	Good
				S2-S3	0.91 (0.83-0.99)	Excellent
				S0-S1 vs S2-S3	0.89 (0.65-0.98)	Good

AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; VCTE: Vibration-controlled transient elastography; CAP: Controlled attenuation parameter; ATI: Attenuation imaging; SWE: Shear wave elastography; UAP: Ultrasound attenuation parameter; MAFLD: Metabolic-associated fatty liver disease; NLV: Normalized local variance; NLV-SD: Standard deviation of normalized local variance; ALD: Alcoholic liver disease; SWA: Shear wave attenuation; NASH: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; HRI: Hepatic steatosis or fibrosis-related index; UGAP: Ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter.

Table 12 QUADAS-2 evaluation results

Ref.	Risk of bias by domain				Applicability by domain
	D1	D2	D3	D4	D1	D2	D3
Aksakal et al[20]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Alcantara-Diaz et al[21]	High	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	High	Low	Low
Atzori et al[22]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Cassinotto et al[23]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Damjanovska et al[24]	High	Uncertain	Uncertain	High	Low	Low	Low
Fang et al[25]	Low	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Garcovich et al[26]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Gatos et al[27]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Hsu et al[56]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Imajo et al[66]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Jocius et al[28]	Low	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kavak et al[29]	Uncertain	Uncertain	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Kim et al[67]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kjaergaard et al[57]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kuroda et al[58]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Laroia et al[30]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Lee et al[31]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Liu et al[59]	Low	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Manesis et al[32]	Uncertain	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Martonik et al[33]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Mendoza et al[34]	Low	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Mikolasevic et al[35]	Low	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Nogami et al[36]	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ogino et al[37]	Low	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Paisant et al[38]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Patidar et al[39]	Low	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Prieto Ortiz et al[68]	High	Uncertain	Uncertain	High	High	High	High
Qu et al[60]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Roccarina et al[40]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Saadi et al[41]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Seyrek et al[42]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Sharpton et al[43]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Soh et al[44]	Low	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Song et al[45]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Taibbi et al[46]	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low
Wang et al[47]	High	Uncertain	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low	Low
Wang et al[48]	Uncertain	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Wang et al[49]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Welman et al[63]	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low
Yamaoka et al[54]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Yan et al[69]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Yang et al[50]	High	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Yang et al[51]	High	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Yazdani et al[61]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Yoo et al[53]	High	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Yoo et al[52]	High	Low	Low	Uncertain	Low	Low	Low
Yu et al[62]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Zhang et al[70]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Zhao et al[65]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Zhou et al[64]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Zougmoré et al[55]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low