Mens 2007b.

Clinical features and settings	Presenting signs and symptoms: Suspected uncomplicated malaria, fever or history of fever in the previous 24 h Previous treatment for malaria: No exclusions based on previous treatment, and no data presented on previous use of antimalarials Clinical setting: Hospital outpatients Country: Kenya Malaria endemicity: Mesoendemic Malaria endemic species:P. falciparum
Participants	Sample size: 184 Age: 6 months to 12 years Sex: Both males and females eligible; male: female ratio 1:1 Co‐morbidities and pregnancy: No exclusions based on co‐morbidities. No details of the frequency of these conditions in the participant population presented. Parasite density of microscopy positive cases: Range 400 to 828,800 parasites per μl, mean 18,680
Study design	Enrollment was consecutive and prospective. Three RDTs were tested. All individuals received all three tests.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Malaria parasitaemia Reference standard: Microscopy thick and thin blood films Person(s) performing microscopy: Experienced microscopists Microscopy setting: Not stated Number of high power fields examined before declaring negative: Not stated. Parasite density was counted against 200 leukocytes. Number of observer or repeats: Two Resolution of discrepancies between observers: Report stated that there were no discordant results between the two microscopists
Index and comparator tests	Commerical name of RDT: Paracheck Pf (Orchid Biomedical Systems, Goa, India) OptiMAL (Diamed AG, Switzerland) Parascreen (Zephyr Biomedical, Verna, Goa, India) Parasite(s) designed to detect: Paracheck Pf ‐ P. falciparum OptiMAL ‐ P. falciparum or mixed infection, non‐falciparum species only Parascreen ‐ P. falciparum or mixed infection, non‐falciparum species only Designated Type: Paracheck Pf ‐ Type 1 OptiMAL ‐ Type 4 Parascreen ‐ Type 3 Batch numbers: Not stated Transport and storage conditions: Not described Person(s) performing RDT: Two independent readers RDT setting: Not mentioned
Follow‐up	Not applicable
Notes	Source of funding: The Hubrecht‐Janssen Fund, KIT, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Yes	Participants were a consecutive sample of children with fever or history of fever in the past 24 h
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	Unclear	Two independent microscopists examined the slides. Unclear how many high power fields were examined before declaring a slide 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	Report states that microscopists were blinded to the results of the other tests performed
Index test results blinded? All tests	Yes	Report states that readers were blinded to the results of the other tests performed
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Yes	Paracheck: 4 failures; OptiMAL: 5 failures; Parascreen: 1 failure
Withdrawals explained? All tests	No	Unclear whether test failures were repeated, or whether they were included or excluded in the analysis