White 2013a.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	As part of the local neutropenic fever care pathway, twice weekly samples were routinely taken. Serum was prospectively tested by GM EIA. Although they speak of controls, it seems that the inclusion was consecutively done, as they have 1 proven, 6 probables, 10 possibles and 48 'controls'. This is very much in agreement with what one would expect
Patient characteristics and setting	Haematology population; not much further information. No reasons to have high concern regarding applicability of this population.
Index tests	Platelia test; cut‐off 0.5 Serum‐positive EIA results were confirmed by retesting if the results from plasma and serum were incongruent or if the result represented a single positive among the samples tested per patient and was not confirmed by plasma testing. Otherwise, agreement between samples or multiple positive results were considered confirmation
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Over a 6‐month period, cases (proven, probable and possible IA) were selected according to disease status as defined, at the time of testing, by the revised EORTC/MSG criteria (De Pauw 2008). (They also took plasma samples; the results of these were not included in EORTC criteria, but it is not clear what they did with the serum samples)
Flow and timing	No information on timing
Comparative
No patients per category	1 proven, 6 probables, 10 possibles and 48 'controls'
Notes	Authors are involved with and paid by (for conferences and talks) Giliad Sciences and Pfizer, 2 therapeutic companies
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?	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?	Unclear
		Unclear