Mlejnek 2014.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Cross‐sectional study Retrospective design Sample: consecutive 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: unclear Presenting signs and symptoms: not reported ("all patients who had rapid strep screens") Age range for inclusion: < 21 years
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 3423 Age (distribution): not reported GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 16.8% (95% CI not reported) Country of study: USA Sex (% of girls): not reported Clinical severity assessment: none Clinical setting: emergency department Single‐centre study
Index tests	Throat swab (1 single, 1 double, 2 different): not reported Commercial name of the RADT: OSOM Strep A Type of RADT: EIA
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Throat culture medium: standard Atmosphere of incubation: aerobic with CO2 enrichment Duration of incubation: 48 hours 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	Conference abstract (Annual Meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Dallas, Texas, USA, May 2014)
Notes	We thank Dr. JR Mlejnek for sharing additional information that was not part of the original conference abstract
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 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?	Yes
		Unclear	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?	Yes
		Low	Low
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)?	Yes
Were the culture medium, atmosphere, duration of incubation and GAS‐confirmation technique described?	Yes
		High	Low
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