Tanriover 2008.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Reported as a prospective cohort study All patients (> 16 years of age) with high‐risk haematological malignancies admitted to the Internal Medicine wards during the 2‐year study period were interviewed and those who consented were recruited for follow‐up Patients who gave informed consent were included in the study starting from the day they were admitted to the wards and followed up until death, discharge or withdrawal of consent, whichever occurred earlier. Death or discharge within 10 days of hospitalisation, less than 10 days of neutropenia or major difficulty in obtaining blood samples were the exclusion criteria.
Patient characteristics and setting	58 treatment episodes in 45 participants Age between 15 and 74 years Turkey Analyses are based on episodes All patients (> 16 years of age) with high‐risk haematological malignancies admitted to the Internal Medicine wards during the 2‐year study period were interviewed and those who consented were recruited for follow‐up Representative spectrum? Yes: all patients (> 16 years of age) with high‐risk haematological malignancies; prospective study
Index tests	Platelia Aspergillus; Bio‐Rad Laboratories; according to manufacturer's instructions. GM index was expressed as the ratio of the optical density of the sample relative to the optical density of the threshold control (ODI). Cut‐points tested: 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5. Calculations made separately for single positive values and at least 2 consecutive positive results (within 1 week) as well as classifying the data as proven plus probable or proven plus probable plus possible
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Invasive aspergillosis, as defined by EORTC criteria (Ascioglu 2002) Incorporation avoided? Yes: "GM positivity was not used as a microbiological criterion for classifying IA." Acceptable reference standard? Yes: EORTC criteria
Flow and timing	The mean time between the first febrile day and the first CT scan was reported: 15.7 +/‐ 12 days Partial verification avoided; withdrawals were explained; there were no uninterpretable results
Comparative
No patients per category	1 proven, 4 probable, 20 possible, 33 no IA
Notes	Sponsoring reported and no Platelia support mentioned This study is registered as being published in 2010, which is correct, but it was already published online in 2008
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?	Unclear
		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?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
		Low