2. Sensitivity analyses.

Target artery	Analysis	Included studies N	Included individuals N	Sensitivity	Specificity	Consequences in a cohort of 1000 with a 42% disease prevalence (prevalence taken fromWardlaw 2014)		Model
						Missed cases	False positives
Any artery	Exclusion of conference proceedings	7	403	0.91 (0.80 to 0.96)	0.94 (0.86 to 0.98)	38 (95% CI 8 to 59)	35 (95% CI 12 to 81)	BREM
	Low risk of bias	3	258	0.94 (0.77 to 0.98)	0.97 (0.91 to 0.99)	25 (95% CI 8 to 97)	17 (95% CI 6 to 52)	UREM
	Low risk of bias on Domain 2 of the QUADAS‐2	4	297	0.90 (0.75 to 0.97)	0.97 (0.92 to 0.99)	42 (95% CI 13 to 105)	17 (95% CI 6 to 46)	UREM
MCA	Exclusion of conference proceedings	6	303	0.89 (0.78 to 0.95)	0.95 (0.88 to 0.98)	46 (95% CI 21 to 92)	29 (95% CI 12 to 70)	BREM
	Low risk of bias	2	158	0.97 (0.41 to 1.00)	0.99 (0.93 to 1.00)	13 (95% CI 0 to 248)	6 (95% CI 0 to 41)	UREM
	Low risk of bias on Domain 2 of the QUADAS‐2	3	197	0.91 (0.62 to 0.98)	0.99 (0.94 to 1.00)	38 (95% CI 8 to 160)	6 (95% CI 0 to 35)	UREM

^{BREM: bivariate random effects meta‐analysis
 MCA: middle cerebral artery
 UREM: univariate random‐effects meta‐analysis}