Cherian 2010.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Type of study: retrospective study. Consecutive or random sample: consecutive patients.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 78. Females: not stated. Age: not stated. Presentation: Patients with solid pancreatic lesions and suspected pancreatic cancer who required definitive diagnosis. Atypical histories and symptoms. Equivocal CT findings. Deemed unresectable or unfit for surgery. Setting: secondary care, UK.
Index tests	Index test: EUS‐FNA. Further details: Technical specifications: Olympus GF‐UCT240‐AL5. Performed by: endoscopist and cytologist. Criteria for positive diagnosis: not stated.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: benign versus malignant. Reference standard: surgical excision and histology in people who had undergone surgery and clinical follow‐up, defined as serial imaging at 12 months that demonstrated progression of disease or patients had clinical deterioration or death. Further details: Technical specifications: not applicable. Performed by: clinicians. Criteria for positive diagnosis: not stated.
Flow and timing	Number of indeterminates for whom the results of reference standard were available: not stated. Number of patients who were excluded from the analysis: not stated.
Comparative
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Yes
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
		Low	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous versus benign ‐ EUS FNA
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
		Unclear	Low
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
		High	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?	No
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
		High