Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 4;2016(7):CD010502. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010502.pub2

Reinert 1988.

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: febrile sore throat
Age range for inclusion: 2 to 14 years
Patient characteristics and setting Sample size: 92
 Age (distribution): mean age = 6 years and 4 months
GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 29.4% (95% CI not reported)
 Country of study: France
 Sex (% of girls): not reported
 Clinical severity assessment: none
 Clinical setting: office‐based
 Multi‐centre study
Index tests Throat swab: 2 different swabs (1 swab for performing the RADT, 1 swab for culture)
Commercial name of the RADT: Group A Strep Test (Quidel)
 Type of RADT: EIA
Target condition and reference standard(s) Throat culture medium: enrichment and inhibitory 
 Atmosphere of incubation: aerobic
 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
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)? Yes    
Was clinical selection of patients avoided? No    
Were patients seen in an ambulatory care setting? Yes    
    High High
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? Unclear    
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? Yes    
Did all patients receive a throat culture? Yes    
Did patients receive the same throat culture method? Unclear    
Were undetermined/uninterpretable results reported? No    
Were withdrawals from the study explained? No    
    Unclear