Yuckienuz 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: yes (office culture versus laboratory culture) Person performing the throat sample: physicians Exclusion if recent antibiotics use before inclusion: no Clinical selection of patients: none Presenting signs and symptoms: pharyngitis Age range for inclusion: not reported ("children")
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 341 Age (distribution): not reported GAS prevalence according to culture (with 95% confidence interval): 37.0% (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 double swab (1 swab for culture, 1 swab for performing the RADT) Commercial name of the RADT: SUDS Group A Strep (Murex) Type of RADT: EIA
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Throat culture medium: standard Atmosphere of incubation: aerobic during 24 hours (office culture) and then anaerobic during 24 hours (laboratory) Duration of incubation: 48 hours GAS confirmation: bacitracin disk and latex test Number of plates inoculated: 1 plate initially inoculated in the office but several subcultures performed in the laboratory Assessment of GAS antibody response: no Relevant details: 1 swab was used for office culture (aerobic 24‐hour incubation) and the plates were then transferred to the laboratory for further exploration (anaerobic 24‐hour reincubation +/‐ subcultures of suspect colonies)
Flow and timing	No follow‐up
Comparative
Type of study	Journal article
Notes	The manufacturer of the RADT (Murex) financially supported the study and provided the test kits
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?	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?	Yes
Did all patients receive a throat culture?	Yes
Did patients receive the same throat culture method?	No
Were undetermined/uninterpretable results reported?	No
Were withdrawals from the study explained?	Yes
		High