El‐Morshedy 1996.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Cross‐sectional design; random sampling | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Species: S. mansoni Country: Egypt Sample size: 257 Age range: 20 to 25 years Participants: Cohort consisted of 257 men, treated, infected cases in a military camp Setting: military camp Praziquantel status before study: no prior drugs |
||
Index tests | CAA ELISA Serum (in‐house assay) | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | S. mansoni infection measured by stool microscopy (Kato‐Katz) | ||
Flow and timing | |||
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? | No | ||
High | Low | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test CAA ELISA | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Unclear | ||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Unclear | ||
Was quality control done? | No | ||
Unclear | 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 | ||
Was quality control done? | 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? | Yes | ||
Low |