Kellog 1987.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Cross‐sectional study
Prospective design
Sample: unclear
Direct comparison of different RADTs: no
Direct comparison of several throat culture techniques: yes (office versus laboratory culture)
Person performing the throat sample: not reported Exclusion if recent antibiotics use before inclusion: no Clinical selection of patients: none Presenting signs and symptoms: patients with symptoms of pharyngitis Age range for inclusion: not reported (only age range of included patients) |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 358
Age (distribution): mean 7.2 years (range 7 months to 19 years) GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 29.9% (95% CI not reported) Country of study: USA Sex (% of girls): not reported Clinical severity assessment: none Clinical setting: office‐based Single‐centre study |
||
Index tests | Throat swab: 1 single swab (used for culture and then for the RADT) Commercial name of the RADT: TestPack Strep A (Abbott) Type of RADT: EIA |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Throat culture medium: standard Atmosphere of incubation: anaerobic Duration of incubation: 48 hours GAS confirmation: latex test or direct fluorescent antibody procedure Number of plates inoculated: 1 Assessment of GAS antibody response: no Relevant details: 2 swabs were taken from each patient. Swab #1 was used in the office for culture (office culture) and then for performing the RADT. Swab #2 was sent to the laboratory for culture and then for performing the RADT. We only extracted data related to analyses performed in the microbiology laboratory. | ||
Flow and timing | No follow‐up | ||
Comparative | |||
Type of study | Journal article | ||
Notes | 2 swabs were taken from each patient. Swab #1 was used in the office for culture (office culture) and then for performing the RADT. Swab #2 was sent to the laboratory for culture and then for performing the RADT. We only extracted data related to analyses performed in the microbiology laboratory. | ||
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? | Unclear | ||
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 | ||
Unclear | 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? | No | ||
Low |