Singh 2003a.

Clinical features and settings	Presenting signs and symptoms: Fever or history of fever Previous treatment for malaria: No explicit exclusions based on previous treatment, and no data reported Clinical setting: Hospital malaria clinic Country: India, Jabalpur Malaria endemicity: Not stated Malaria endemic species:P. falciparum and P. vivax in roughly equal proportions
Participants	Sample size: 80 Age: All age groups eligible. Adults and children included; mean age 27.7 (SD 16.42) for males and 29 (SD 12.8) for females Sex: Both males and females eligible; included 28 males and 18 females Co‐morbidities and pregnancy: No explicit 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 370,574 parasites per μl for P. falciparum and 318 to 9970 for P. vivax
Study design	Enrollment was prospective. The sampling method was not described. Only one RDT was evaluated.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Malaria parasitaemia Reference standard: Microscopy thick blood films Person(s) performing microscopy: Not stated Microscopy setting: Hospital laboratory Number of high power fields examined before declaring negative: Not stated Number of observer or repeats: If the results of the OptiMAL conflicted with that of microscopy for any sample, the blood smear was re‐examined by a different technician Resolution of discrepancies between observers: If the re‐examination of discordant results gave a different result to the first examination, the second result was confirmed by yet another technician
Index and comparator tests	Commerical name of RDT: OptiMAL Parasite(s) designed to detect:P. falciparum or mixed infection, non‐falciparum species only Designated type: Type 4 Batch numbers: Not stated Transport and storage conditions: Not described Person(s) performing RDT: A technician RDT setting: Hospital clinic or laboratory
Follow‐up	Not applicable
Notes	Source of funding: Not stated.
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Unclear	Participants were all attending a clinic with fever or history of fever, but the sampling method was not described
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	Unclear	Discordant results between RDT and microscopy were re‐examined; however the number of high power fields viewed before declaring a sample 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	Yes	Technicans were blinded to the results of the blood smear examination
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Unclear	The number of participants originally enrolled in the study was clearly stated and the number presented in the analysis corresponded; therefore there were no exclusions due to uninterpretable test results
Withdrawals explained? All tests	Yes	The number of participants originally enrolled in the study was clearly stated and the number presented in the analysis corresponded; therefore there were no withdrawals