Ozkan 2011.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Retrospective patient series
Patient characteristics and setting	153 NSCLC participants, mean age = 61.4 (SD = 9.97) years, 135 males/18 females, Turkey Histology of primary tumour Not reported; comorbidities: not reported Inclusion criteria Not reported Exclusion criteria Not reported Previous tests Not reported Clinical setting Secondary/tertiary care
Index tests	FDG‐PET‐CT 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): not reported
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Histopathology or clinical follow‐up decisions and the results of other imaging tests
Flow and timing	If the whole sample only consisted of the 153 participants reported in the abstract, all participants were included in the analysis
Comparative
Notes	Author sent test accuracy data on request. As the study was only published as an abstract, we contacted the author (on 3 December 2012) to request the following information. How was the sample recruited? ‐ Did the study population consist of a consecutive sample?   Characteristics of the 153 participants: ‐ Histology of primary tumour? ‐ Comorbidities? ‐ NSCLC stage? ‐ Inclusion criteria? ‐ Exclusion criteria? ‐ Previous/all reported tests? ‐ Clinical setting Thoracic surgery unit? ‐ Were any participants excluded from the analyses? PET‐CT scanning: ‐ What type of PET‐CT scanner was used? ‐ What FDG dose was used? ‐ What was the injection‐to‐scan time? ‐ Did you use attenuation correction? ‐ What was the criteria for a positive result? ‐ Did you use a prespecified cut‐off value for test positivity? ‐ Was the PET‐CT results interpreted without knowledge of the pathological/follow‐up results? Pathological staging: You state in the abstract that PET/CT results were confirmed histopathologically or according to clinical follow‐up decisions and the results of other imaging tests. ‐ How many participants received histopathological confirmation, and how many participants received non‐histopathological confirmation and why (including, what did their confirmation consist of instead)? ‐ Was the pathological staging results interpreted without knowledge of the PET‐CT results? Flow and timing: ‐ What was the interval between PET‐CT and histopathological/other confirmation of the PET‐CT results? ‐ Were there any adverse events of the PET‐CT? Funding ‐ Was the study funded and if yes, by whom? We received no response 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?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Unclear	Unclear
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?	Unclear
Was a positive result defined?	No
		Unclear	Unclear
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Unclear
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
		Unclear	Unclear
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?	No
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
		Unclear