Becker 2003.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Prospective; consecutive series of patients
Patient characteristics and setting	160 participants Age ranged from 18 to 79 years No information about gender Netherlands Adult haematological patients with neutropenia Inpatients, monitoring of clinical course Representative spectrum? Yes: haematology patients that had an expected neutropenia for at least 10 days and had an age of at least 18 years. Serum samples were taken from all patients twice weekly (= consecutive) Prospective; consecutive patient series
Index tests	Platelia: serum was sampled twice weekly during neutropenia. 2 subsequent positive samples were considered positive. Cut‐off 1.0 ODI
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Invasive aspergillosis, modified EORTC criteria (they added 2 extra categories) (Ascioglu 2002) Incorporation avoided? Yes: results of galactomannan detection were excluded from the criteria Acceptable reference standard? Yes: invasive fungal infections were classified according to the EORTC case definitions, with some modifications (1 extra category). Ascioglu 2002 cited
Flow and timing	Time interval not reported Partial verification avoided? Yes: all patients were classified according to reference criteria Withdrawals explained? Yes Uninterpretable results reported? Yes: suspected and possible patients
Comparative
No patients per category	2 proven, 11 probable, 22 possible (18 suspected plus 4 possible), 125 non‐IA
Notes	Sponsoring not reported
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 a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Yes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Yes
		Low	Unclear
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Unclear
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
		Unclear