Begovac 1993.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient sampling | Cross‐sectional study
Prospective design
Sample: unclear
Direct comparison of different RADTs: no
Direct comparison of several throat culture techniques: no
Person performing the throat sample: not reported Exclusion if recent antibiotics use before inclusion: no Clinical selection of patients: none Presenting signs and symptoms: symptoms and signs of pharyngitis Age range for inclusion: not reported |
||
| Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 389 (age < 15 years = 389, age > 15 years = 115)
Age (distribution): mean or median not reported GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 31.1% (95% CI not reported) Country of study: Croatia Sex (% of girls): not reported Clinical severity assessment: none Clinical setting: walk‐in clinic (outpatient clinic of a University Hospital) Single‐centre study |
||
| Index tests | Throat swab: 1 double swab Commercial name of the RADT: Venterscreen Strep A Type of RADT: EIA |
||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Throat culture medium: standard and inhibitory (2 plates)
Atmosphere of incubation: aerobic with CO2 enrichment
Duration of incubation: 48 hours
GAS confirmation: latex test Number of plates inoculated: 2 Assessment of GAS antibody response: no Relevant details: ‐ |
||
| Flow and timing | No follow‐up | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Type of study | Journal article | ||
| 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 it a cross‐sectional study or a RCT? | Yes | ||
| Were selection criteria clearly described (at least presenting signs and symptoms and age limits for inclusion)? | No | ||
| Was clinical selection of patients avoided? | Yes | ||
| Were patients seen in an ambulatory care setting? | Yes | ||
| High | Low | ||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
| Were the RADT results interpreted with blinding of the results of culture? | Yes | ||
| Was the type of the RADT mentioned (EIA or OIA)? | Yes | ||
| Were RADTs conducted during consultation time? | No | ||
| Low | High | ||
| DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
| Were culture results interpreted with blinding of the results of the RADT? | Yes | ||
| Is the throat culture method likely to correctly identify GAS (laboratory culture on a blood agar plate during 48 hr)? | Yes | ||
| Were the culture medium, atmosphere, duration of incubation and GAS‐confirmation technique described? | Yes | ||
| Low | Low | ||
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
| Was the delay between the performance of the RADT and throat culture plating less than 48 hours? | Yes | ||
| Did all patients receive a throat culture? | Yes | ||
| Did patients receive the same throat culture method? | Yes | ||
| Were undetermined/uninterpretable results reported? | No | ||
| Were withdrawals from the study explained? | Yes | ||
| Low | |||