Mirza 2007b.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Cross‐sectional study Retrospective design Sample: unclear Direct comparison of different RADTs: no Direct comparison of several throat culture techniques: no Person performing the throat sample: nurses Exclusion if recent antibiotics use before inclusion: no Clinical selection of patients: unclear Presenting signs and symptoms: unclear Age range for inclusion: < 18 years
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: total 6865 (only 5135 included in the meta‐analysis, i.e., those with RADT negative results also cultured) Age (distribution): not reported GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 29.3% (95% CI not reported) Country of study: USA Sex (% of girls): not reported Clinical severity assessment: none Clinical setting: unclear ("children's hospital") Single‐centre study
Index tests	Throat swab: 2 different swabs (1 swab for performing the RADT, 1 swab for culture) Commercial name of the RADT: Signify Strep A (Abbott) Type of RADT: EIA
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Throat culture medium: inhibitory Atmosphere of incubation: not reported Duration of incubation: not reported GAS confirmation: not reported Number of plates inoculated: 1 Assessment of GAS antibody response: no Relevant details: ‐
Flow and timing	No follow‐up
Comparative
Type of study	Journal article
Notes	See Mirza 2007a
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?	Unclear
Were patients seen in an ambulatory care setting?	Unclear
		High	Unclear
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?	No
Is the throat culture method likely to correctly identify GAS (laboratory culture on a blood agar plate during 48 hr)?	Unclear
Were the culture medium, atmosphere, duration of incubation and GAS‐confirmation technique described?	No
		High	High
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was the delay between the performance of the RADT and throat culture plating less than 48 hours?	Unclear
Did all patients receive a throat culture?	No
Did patients receive the same throat culture method?	Yes
Were undetermined/uninterpretable results reported?	No
Were withdrawals from the study explained?	Yes
		High