Hu 2013.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Type of study: retrospective study. Consecutive or random sample: unclear.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 80. Females: 36 (45.0%). Age: 57 years. Presentation: Inclusion criteria Patients with solitary pancreatic lesions who had undergone PET scan and surgical resection. Exclusion criteria Patients with suspected malignancies in other areas of the body. Setting: secondary care, China.
Index tests	Index test: PET. Further details: Technical specifications: Biograph 16 HR PET/CT scanner (Siemens). Performed by: radiologist. Criteria for positive diagnosis: SUVmax > 3.5.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: cancerous versus benign. Reference standard: surgical excision. 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?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cystic lesion subgroup analysis ‐ Cancerous versus benign ‐ PET
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	No
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
		High	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous versus benign ‐ PET (SUV max > 3.5)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	No
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
		High	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?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
		Unclear