Pinel 2003.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Prospective; series of patients with same risk profile Not reported whether selection was done consecutively, but no reason to assume it was not
Patient characteristics and setting	3327 serum samples from 807 participants No information about age 62% of the cases were male France Patients from haematological and intensive care units that were at risk for invasive fungal infections Inpatients, monitoring clinical course Representative spectrum? Yes: patients from haematological and intensive care units that were at risk of invasive fungal infections
Index tests	Platelia. 2 consecutive positive patient samples were necessary to suspect IA. In analyses also looked at single sample results. Cut‐offs analysed: > 1.0 ODI subsequently; 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 as single sample
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Invasive aspergillosis, as defined by EORTC criteria (Ascioglu 2002) Incorporation avoided? The authors did not explicitly report the exclusion of the ELISA results from the EORTC criteria, so blinding also unclear Acceptable reference standard? Yes: EORTC criteria (Ascioglu 2002)
Flow and timing	Time interval was not reported. Partial verification avoided? Yes: all patients were classified according to reference criteria Withdrawals explained? No Uninterpretable results reported? No
Comparative
No patients per category	3 proven, 31 probable, 22 possible, 751 no IA
Notes	Also clinical and radiological signs reported Nothing reported about financial support
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?	Unclear
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?	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?	Unclear
		Unclear