Hopkins 2007.

Clinical features and settings	Presenting signs and symptoms: Fever Previous treatment for malaria: No exclusion criteria based on antimalarial use and no data collected on this Clinical setting: Clinic specially set up as part of a longitudinal study, based within a main public hospital Country: Uganda (Kampala) Malaria endemicity: Not stated Malaria endemic species:P. falciparum
Participants	Sample size: 918 Age: Children aged 1.5 to 11.5 years Sex: Both males and females eligible. Actual proportions of males and females in the participant population not stated. Co‐morbidities: No exclusions were made, and there was no information presented on co‐morbidities Parasite density of microscopy positive cases: Not presented
Study design	Enrollment was consecutive and prospective. Two RDTs were tested, and all participants received both tests.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Malaria parasitaemia Reference standard: Microscopy thick and thin blood films Person(s) performing microscopy: Experienced laboratory technologists Microscopy setting: Hospital laboratory Number of high power fields examined before declaring negative: 100 Number of observer or repeats: Two; all smears were read a second time by study laboratory staff to confirm results Resolution of discrepancies between observers: Discrepant readings were resolved by a third reader
Index and comparator tests	Commerical name of RDTs: Paracheck Pf (Orchid Biomedical Systems, Goa, India) Parabank (Zephyr Biomedicals, Goa, India) Parasite(s) designed to detect: Paracheck Pf (Orchid Biomedical Systems, Goa, India) ‐ P. falciparum Parabank (Zephyr Biomedicals, Goa, India) ‐ P. falciparum or mixed infection, non‐falciparum malaria species only Designated Type: Paracheck: Type 1 Parabank: Type 4 Batch numbers: Not stated Transport and storage conditions: Obtained directly from the manufacturer and stored in their original packaging at room temperature in the clinic. The temperature ranged from 19 °C to 29 °C over the course of the study. Person(s) performing RDT: Laboratory technicians. RDT setting: The research clinic
Follow‐up	Not applicable
Notes	Source of funding: US National Institute of Health, with additional support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Yes	Participants were a consecutive series of children attending a clinic with fever in a malaria endemic area
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	Yes	Two independent experienced microscopists viewed 100 high powered fields before declaring negative
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	Yes	Microscopy was undertaken at a different location to the RDTs
Index test results blinded? All tests	Yes	Readers were unaware of the microscopy results at the time they undertook the study
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Unclear	The number of participants who received the tests was explicitly stated and corresponded to the number included in the analysis; therefore there were no exclusions due to invalid results
Withdrawals explained? All tests	Yes	RDTs were not performed in 15 episodes: nine at the discretion of the physician during follow‐up for non‐febrile illness, and six because of protocol errors