Byeon 2014.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Inclusion/exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria: treated for rhabdoid glioblastoma Prior testing Histopathological diagnosis. Electron microscopy
Patient characteristics and setting	Number of participants/tumours with results for 1p/19q status by ≥ 2 DNA‐based tests: 3 Country: Republic of Korea Population source and setting: Seoul National University Hospital, Yonsei Severance Hospital, and Soon Cheon Yang University Bucheon Hospital, Republic of Korea. 2004–2011 Agea: mean: 35.6 years, standard deviation: NR; range: 20–45 years Gendera: 20.0% male Karnofsky performance status: NR aFor whole population: 5 participants included in the study, only 3 were tested with aCGH and FISH.
Index tests	2 tests: aCGH and FISH aCGH Tumour sample type: FFPE Region(s) analysed: genome wide Cut‐off: NR Additional details: used a (quote) "MacArray Karyo (Macrogen, Seoul, South Korea), which consisted of 4365 human bacterial artificial chromosome clones". FISH Tumour sample type: NR Region(s) analysed: Vysis probes (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois, USA). 1p36 and 19q13 (from DOI: 10.1593/tlo.12328, reference 12 in the paper). Cut‐off: < 0.8 (from doi.org/10.1111/j.1440‐1789.2006.00735.x, which is referenced by reference 12 in the paper).
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition was absolute 1p/19q deletion. FISH used as reference standard in some of our analyses.
Flow and timing	We presumed that all tests were performed on biopsied tumour material collected on 1 occasion.
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
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NanoString)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (aCGH)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Unclear
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (G‐banding)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 4))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SNP array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (with comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (without comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CISH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (RFLP)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR‐based LOH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS or aCGH (or both))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Methylation array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 1))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 2))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 3))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Real‐time PCR)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MLPA)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CGH)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk