Shane2011_Colley2013.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Cross‐sectional design; consecutive sampling | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Species: S. mansoni Country: Kenya Sample size: 1845 (updated from Colley 2013) Age range: 1 to 15 years Participants: children from a village in Western Kenya Setting: field study Praziquantel status before study: reported that there had been no treatment in the area |
||
Index tests | CCA POC cassette (Rapid Medical Diagnostics, Pretoria, South Africa) | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | S. mansoni infection measured by stool microscopy (Kato‐Katz smears) | ||
Flow and timing | |||
Comparative | |||
Notes | This article was part of a multi‐centre study (Colley 2013). In this article, 2‐by‐2 tables of the CCA POC measured against the first daily stool specimen (duplicate KK smears on 1 stool sample) were presented | ||
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? | Unclear | ||
Unclear | Low | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test CCA POC | |||
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? | Yes | ||
Was quality control done? | Yes | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | No | ||
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Yes | ||
Was quality control done? | Yes | ||
High | 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 |