Marr 2004.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Patients were enrolled prospectively; blood samples were analysed after storage
Patient characteristics and setting	67 participants Age ranged from 5 to 66 years No information about gender USA Children and adults undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Monitoring clinical course, no further information provided. Representative spectrum? Unclear: children and adults undergoing bone marrow transplantation; although it seems not to be a case‐control design, this can not completely be ruled out
Index tests	Platelia. Blood samples were obtained weekly. Samples were frozen and relabeled randomly; samples were analysed blinded to both the source of the samples and clinical data. Samples that had an ODI above 0.5 were tested again to verify positive result. At least 1 sample had to be obtained within 1 week before or after diagnosis
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Invasive aspergillosis, as defined by EORTC criteria (Ascioglu 2002) Incorporation avoided? Yes: ELISA was explicitly excluded from EORTC criteria Acceptable reference standard? Yes: EORTC criteria (Ascioglu 2002)
Flow and timing	Time interval not reported Partial verification avoided? Unclear: all cases were classified according to the reference criteria. What they did to find controls is not entirely clear Withdrawals explained? Yes Uninterpretable results reported? Not reported
Comparative
No patients per category	13 proven, 11 probable, 8 possible, 35 no IA
Notes	Sponsoring precluded? No: financed by National Institute of Health and Bio‐Rad Labs. 3 authors have also worked as consultants for Bio‐Rad Labs
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 a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Unclear	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	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
		Low