Ossenkoppele 2012a.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	At baseline 15 participants were included in each group: MCI, AD and controls. No further details of participant sampling and recruitment were reported. We only included data on performance of the index test to discriminate between people with MCI who converted to dementia and those who remained stable. Exclusion criteria were a history of major psychiatric or neurological illness (other than AD) and the use of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. People with severe vascular events during the follow‐up period, such as stroke or haemorrhage, were also excluded.
Patient characteristics and setting	15 participants diagnosed by the Petersen 1999 criteria. Data reported only on 12 MCI participants. Gender: 9 men; 3 women Age: mean 67 ± 7 years APOE ϵ4 carrier: 8 MMSE: 27 ± 3 Education: median (range): 6 (3 ‐ 7) years Sources of referral: not reported. Sources of recruitment: not reported.
Index tests	¹⁸F‐FDG PET scan 150 ± 17 MBq ¹⁸F‐FDG was injected at baseline, and 35 mins later, a 10‐min transmission scan (3 x 5‐min frame) were performed. For regional analysis SUVr of the frontal, parietal and lateral temporal cortices, and the medial temporal lobe and posterior cingulate were calculated. Threshold: visual inspection. Threshold (SUVr of ROI) not reported Index test was conducted before follow‐up.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia or other forms of dementia Reference standards: NINCDS‐ADRDA criteria for AD (McKhann 1984); Reference standard for the clinical criteria for FTD not reported. Unclear whether clinicians conducting follow‐up were aware of the ¹⁸F‐FDG results.
Flow and timing	Duration of follow‐up: mean interval 2.5 years (range 2 ‐ 4 years) At baseline: 15 MCI participants. Data reported only on 12 MCI participants: 4 FDG positive test; 8 FDG negative test (from the author). At follow‐up: 12 participants: 5 MCI‐converters (4 MCI‐ADD; 1 MCI‐FTD); 8 MCI‐non‐converters MCI (8 MCI‐MCI) (from the author). Number included in analysis: 12 Conversion from MCI to ADD: TP = 3; FP = 1; FN = 1; TN = 7 Conversion from MCI to all dementia: TP = 3; FP = 1; FN = 2; TN = 6 Loss to follow‐up: 3 MCI patients refused to participate in the follow‐up study due to lack of motivation
Comparative
Notes	We contacted the trial investigators who provided the relevant data tor the 2 x 2 table to be completed and confirmed there are no overlapping participants with the Ossenkoppele 2012b study (email on 25th July 2013).
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?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	No
		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?	Unclear
		Unclear	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?	No
		Low