Hong 2010.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Type of study: retrospective study. Consecutive or random sample: consecutive patients.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 31. Females: 16 (51.6%). Age: 65 years. Presentation: Patients with IPMN who had undergone CT/PET. Setting: secondary care, Korea.
Index tests	Index test: PET. Further details: Technical specifications: DSTe (GE Healthcare). Performed by: radiologist. Criteria for positive diagnosis: SUVmax > 2.5. Index test: CT. Further details: Technical specifications: LightSpeed Plus (GE Healthcare) or Somatom Sensation 64 (Siemens Healthcare). Performed by: radiologist. Criteria for positive diagnosis: Main duct‐type. Marked dilatation of the main pancreatic duct (> 10 mm). Large mural nodule (> 1 cm). Large cyst size (> 3 cm). Irregular or septate cyst. Calcification. Patulous duodenal papilla.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: cancerous (high‐grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low‐ or intermediate‐grade dysplasia). Reference standard: surgical excision, open laparotomy biopsy or biopsy of metastases. 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?	Unclear
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous (high grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low or intermediate grade dysplasia) ‐ PET (SUV max 2‐2.5)
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?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous (high grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low or intermediate grade dysplasia) ‐ CT
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?	Yes
		Low	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?	No
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
		High