Sharma 1999.

Clinical features and settings	Presenting signs and symptoms: Clinical symptoms of malaria Previous treatment for malaria: No exclusions based on previous treatment. Information on previous treatment collected, but actual data not provided except in the case of false positive results. Clinical setting: Malaria Clinics Country: Orissa, India Malaria endemicity: Not stated Malaria endemic species: Mainly P. falciparum, some P. vivax
Participants	Sample size: 125 Age: Not mentioned either as an inclusion criteria or characteristic of the included participants Sex: Not mentioned either as an inclusion criteria or characteristic of the included participants Co‐morbidities and pregnancy: No 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: Range 40 to 36,000 parasites per μl
Study design	Enrollment was prospective. Random sampling was used, but exact method used to obtain a random sample was not stated. One RDT was evaluated.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Malaria parasitaemia Reference standard: Microscopy thick and thin blood films Person(s) performing microscopy: Not stated Microscopy setting: Not stated Number of high power fields examined before declaring negative: Not stated Number of observer or repeats: Results discordant between microscopy and RDT were re‐examined for confirmation of the results Resolution of discrepancies between observers: Not described
Index and comparator tests	Commerical name of RDT: ICT Malaria Pf (ICT Diagnostics, Sydney, Australia) Parasite(s) designed to detect:P. falciparum Designated Type: Type 1 Batch numbers: Not stated Transport and storage conditions: Not described Person(s) performing RDT: Various clinic staff RDT setting: Malaria clinics
Follow‐up	Not applicable
Notes	Source of funding: Not stated
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Yes	Participants were a random sample of people attending a clinic with clinical symptoms of malaria
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	Unclear	Discordant results between RDTs and microscopy were re‐examined; however it is unclear how many high power fields were viewed 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	"Evaluation was double blind"
Index test results blinded? All tests	Yes	"Evaluation was double blind"
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Yes	There were five uninterpretable test results; these were excluded from the analysis
Withdrawals explained? All tests	Yes	The numbers enrolled in the study and the numbers with data presented for them correspond, with the exception of the five excluded from the analysis due to uninterpretable test results