Schwabe 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: no
Person performing the throat sample: unclear Exclusion if recent antibiotics use before inclusion: yes (2 weeks before throat swab collection) Clinical selection of patients: none Presenting signs and symptoms: current respiratory tract infection Age range for inclusion: unclear (but Dr. LD Schwabe confirmed that study specimens were primarily from children < 21 years seen in paediatric offices) |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 365
Age (distribution): not reported GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 27.4% (95% CI not reported) Country of study: USA Sex (% of girls): not reported Clinical severity assessment: none Clinical setting: paediatric offices 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 Type of RADT: EIA |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Throat culture medium: standard Atmosphere of incubation: anaerobic for the first 24 hours and then aerobic with CO2 enrichment for the second 24 hours Duration of incubation: 48 hours GAS confirmation: latex test 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 | We thank Dr. LD Schwabe for confirming that study specimens were primarily from children < 21 years seen in paediatric offices | ||
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? | Yes | ||
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? | 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? | Yes | ||
Low |