Ismail 2002.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Prospective multicentre study Healthcare setting: tertiary (5 infectious diseases hospitals) Point of recruitment: inpatients |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Countries: Egypt Level of typhoid endemicity (Crump 2004): medium Age: not specified Gender distribution: not specified Entry criteria: febrile in‐patients meeting pre‐determined case definitions Sample size: 85 |
||
Index tests | Dipstick assay, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Netherlands | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Target condition: Salmonella Typhi Reference standard: peripheral blood culture |
||
Flow and timing | Prospective multicentre study. Samples tested retrospectively 2 to 3 months after recruitment. | ||
Comparative | |||
Notes | Part of a brucellosis diagnostic study. Samples tested retrospectively 2 to 3 months later. |
||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | No | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | No | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Unclear | ||
High | Unclear | ||
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? | Yes | ||
Unclear | 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 | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Unclear | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Low |