Yadav 1997.

Clinical features and settings	Presenting signs and symptoms: Participants who attended at malaria clinic or who were selected from the villages based on clinical condition Previous treatment for malaria: No explicit exclusion criteria based on antimalarial use, and no relevant data presented for included participants Clinical setting: Malaria clinic and in the field Country: Gujarat, India Malaria endemicity: Not stated Malaria endemic species:P. falciparum and P. vivax
Participants	Sample size: 148 Age: All age groups eligible. Sample included 79 children and 69 adults. Sex: 73 males and 75 females included Co‐morbidities and pregnancy: No stated exclusion criteria based on co‐morbidities or pregnancy. No details of the frequency of these conditions in the participant population is presented. Parasite density of microscopy positive cases: Not presented
Study design	Enrollment was prospective. The selection and sampling methods were not described. One RDT was evaluated.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Malaria parasitaemia Reference standard: Microscopy Person(s) performing microscopy: Microscopists Microscopy setting: Not stated Number of high power fields examined before declaring negative: Not stated. The microscopist counted 300 WBCs before declaring a slide negative. A negative slide that tested positive by RDT was re‐examined, counting up to 2000 WBCs. Number of observer or repeats: A negative slide that tested positive by RDT was re‐examined, counting up to 2000 WBCs. A positive slide that tested negative by RDT was re‐examined and confirmed by another person by staining the duplicate film. Resolution of discrepancies between observers: Not described
Index and comparator tests	Commerical name of RDT: ICT test (AMARD/ ICT, Sydney, Australia) Parasite(s) designed to detect:P. falciparum Designated type: Type 1 Batch numbers: Not stated Trasport and storage conditions: Test kits were carried into the field under cold conditions in the containers that are commonly used for carrying vaccines. Person(s) performing RDT: Not states RDT setting: Malaria clinic and in the field in villages
Follow‐up	Not applicable
Notes	Source of funding: Not stated
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Unclear	The selection criteria and sampling methods were not described; however all participants had either identified symptoms of malaria or were attending a malaria clinic
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	No	Microscopists did not explicitly view 100 high power fields before declaring a slide negative. However, they had an alternative criteria of 300 WBCs. Re‐examination by a second microscopist was done for results discordant for RDT and microscopy.
Partial verification avoided? All tests	Yes	All participants who received the index test also received the reference test
Differential verification avoided? All tests	Yes	The same reference test was used regardless of the index test results
Incorporation avoided? All tests	Yes	The index test does not form part of the reference standard
Reference standard results blinded? All tests	Unclear	Blinding not described
Index test results blinded? All tests	Yes	The ICT test was performed "blind"
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Unclear	The number of participants originally included in the analysis was not explicitly stated; therefore it was not possible to assess whether any participants may have been excluded from the analysis due to uninterpretable test results
Withdrawals explained? All tests	Unclear	The number of participants originally included in the analysis was not explicitly stated; therefore it was not possible to assess whether there were any withdrawals