Lee 2011.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Retrospective patient series
Patient characteristics and setting	54 participants, median age = 66 (range = 45 to 83) years, 48 males/6 females, South Korea Histology of primary tumour Not reported. Comorbidities: diabetes: N = 7; hypertension: N = 15; chronic renal failure: N = 1; gastric ulcer or early gastric cancer: N = 4; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: N = 2; history of tuberculosis: N = 14; stage IA to IIB: N = 36; stage IIIA: N = 10; stage IIIB: N = 4; other cancer metastasis to the lung: N = 4 Inclusion criteria Participants who had undergone both chest CT and FDG PET‐CT before surgical resection with at least ipsilateral 4‐ and 7‐lymph node dissection for the treatment of primary or metastatic lung cancer between January 2004 and December 2006 at the Seoul National University Hospital, and who had radiographic TB sequelae ipsilateral to the resected lung in the form of fibrotic bands, small calcified nodules, or bronchiectasis in the upper lobes observed on chest CT preoperatively Exclusion criteria None listed Previous/all tests None listed apart form CT Clinical setting Tertiary referral hospital
Index tests	On CT, mediastinal lymph node enlargement (i.e., positive) was defined as the presence of lymph nodes larger than 1 cm in their smallest diameter Covariates Type of PET‐CT scanner: not reported FDG dose: not reported Injection‐to‐scan time: not reported Attenuation correction: not reported Cut‐off values for test positivity (malignancy): On FDG PET‐CT, mediastinal nodes with increased glucose uptake satisfying both qualitative (greater than that of the surrounding tissue) and quantitative (a maximum standardised uptake value (SUV) adjusted for participant body weight of ≥ 3.0 with a distinct margin) criteria were considered positive
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Pathologic findings in resected specimens
Flow and timing	All participants were accounted for in the results. All participants received the reference standard. There were no uninterpretable results
Comparative
Notes	No details of funding were reported. However, the study was probably not externally funded because the data are retrospective and apparently collected as part of normal practice Population of TB participants Adverse events: not reported
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	No
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
Was there a pre‐specified cut‐off value?	Yes
Was a positive result defined?	Yes
		Unclear	Low
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Yes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
		Unclear	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Unclear
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
		Unclear