Kumar 2004.

Clinical features and settings	Presenting signs and symptoms: Fever Previous treatment for malaria: No mention of previous treatment for malaria, either as an exclusion criteria or a characteristic of included participants Clinical setting: Primary health centres Country: India (Karnataka state) Malaria endemicity: Not stated Malaria endemic species: Mainly P. falciparum, some P. vivax
Participants	Sample size: 2891 Age: Not mentioned either as an exclusion criteria or a characteristic of included participants Sex: Not mentioned either as an exclusion criteria or a characteristic of included participants Co‐morbidities and pregnancy: Not mentioned either as an exclusion criteria or a characteristic of included participants Parasite density of microscopy positive cases: Not presented
Study design	Enrollment was prospective. The sampling method was not described. One RDTs was evaluated.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Malaria parasitaemia Reference standard: Microscopy thick and thin blood film Person(s) performing microscopy: Laboratory technicians Microscopy setting: Initially undertaken at the primary health centres and later cross‐checked at the Central Malaria Laboratory Number of high power fields examined before declaring negative: Not stated Number of observer or repeats: Two Resolution of discrepancies between observers: Not described
Index and comparator tests	Commerical name of RDT: Paracheck‐Pf (Orchid Biomedical Systems, Goa, India) Parasite(s) designed to detect:P. falciparum Designated Type: Type 1 Batch numbers: Not stated Transport and storage conditions: Stored at 4 °C and brought to room temperature before performing the test Person(s) performing RDT: Not stated RDT setting: Not stated
Follow‐up	Not applicable
Notes	Source of funding: Not stated
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Unclear	All participants were attending health centres with fever, but the sampling methods were not described
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	Unclear	Two independent microscopists read the slides; however the number of high power fields viewed before declaring a slide negative was not stated
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	Unclear	Blinding not described
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Unclear	The numbers of participants originally enrolled in the study was not clearly stated; therefore it is unclear whether there were any exclusions due to invalid test results
Withdrawals explained? All tests	Unclear	The numbers of participants originally enrolled in the study was not clearly stated; therefore it is unclear whether there were any withdrawals