Ghosh 2013.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	This was a prospective, single institutional, cohort study conducted during the period October 2008 to February 2010. A convenient sample of 150 consecutive episodes of high‐risk neutropenia was chosen. Patients who were planned for discharge soon after completion of chemotherapy and those not willing to participate were excluded
Patient characteristics and setting	We included patients aged ≥ 15 years, with a diagnosis of leukemia or recipients of auto‐ and allo‐HSCT. Episodes in patients diagnosed with possible or probable IA were also eligible for inclusion Median age of the patients in the episodes was 33 years (range 15.65 years). Male sex predominated with M:F ratio of 2.6:1. Acute myeloid leukaemia induction constituted 50 episodes (33.3%), consolidation with high‐dose cytarabine 30 episodes (20%) and recipients of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto‐HSCT) 37 episodes (24.7%), respectively. 6 episodes had a prior history of IA (3 possible and 3 probable)
Index tests	A double‐sandwich ELISA GM assay (Platelia Aspergillus, Bio‐Rad laboratories) capable of detecting GM at concentrations as low as 0.5 ng/mL was used. The assay was carried out at the Medical Oncology Laboratory of the hospital as per manufacturer's guidelines. A cut‐off of optical density index (ODI) > 0.5 was taken as positive
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Each episode was categorised as no IA, possible IA, probable IA or proven IA according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 2008 criteria (De Pauw 2008). Unclear if GM results were also in criteria
Flow and timing	Timing not reported
Comparative
No patients per category	25 possible, 17 probable, 1 proven, 107 no IA
Notes	No COI declared
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?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
		Unclear	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?	Unclear
		Unclear	Low
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?	Yes
		Unclear