Jesudason 2006.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Prospective single centre study Healthcare setting: tertiary Point of recruitment: both inpatients and outpatients |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Countries: India Level of typhoid endemicity (Crump 2004): high Ages: unclear Gender distribution: unclear Entry criteria: clinical suspicion of typhoid fever Sample size: 563 |
||
Index tests | Typhidot | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Target condition: Salmonella Typhi Reference standard: peripheral blood culture |
||
Flow and timing | Prospective single centre study. Timing unclear. | ||
Comparative | |||
Notes | Study authors excluded one case of Salmonella paratyphi A. | ||
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 | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
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? | Yes | ||
Unclear | Unclear | ||
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? | Unclear | ||
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? | No | ||
Low |