Widiyanti 2013.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Cross‐sectional study with unclear sampling method.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 28 cases, 16 non‐cases (total 44) Clinical presentation: NR Risk factors: NR Region: Philippines Clinical setting: NR Prevalence of leptospirosis: 63.6% DPO of disease at moment of enrolment: NR
Index tests	Index test 1: PCR Target gene: flaB (Kawabata 2001) Timing of sample collection at # DPO of disease: median 5.5 (IQR 3–9) Cut‐off value: not applicable Patient material: urine Company/brand: inhouse Frozen samples: yes Index test 2: ICG‐based LFA Target gene: not applicable Timing of sample collection at # DPO of disease: median 5.5 (IQR 3–9) Cut‐off value: not applicable Patient material: urine Company/brand: inhouse Frozen samples: yes Index test 3: dipstick assay Target gene: not applicable Timing of sample collection at # DPO of disease: median 5.5 (IQR 3–9) Cut‐off value: not applicable Patient material: urine Company/brand: inhouse Frozen samples: yes
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: leptospirosis Case definition: MAT positive Timing of sample collection at # DPO of disease (MAT): NR (some samples were collected in the acute phase) Single or paired sera (MAT): single Cut‐off value (MAT): ≥ 1:400 Patient material (MAT): serum
Flow and timing	All people were included in the analysis.
Comparative
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Unclear
Was a 2‐gate case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Unclear	Unclear
DOMAIN 2: Index Test PCR
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Does the index test, its conduct and interpretation, match the review question?	No
Is the execution of the test reported in such detail that reproduction is possible?	Yes
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test ICG‐based LFA
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Does the index test, its conduct and interpretation, match the review question?	No
Is the execution of the test reported in such detail that reproduction is possible?	Yes
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Dipstick
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Does the index test, its conduct and interpretation, match the review question?	No
Is the execution of the test reported in such detail that reproduction is possible?	Yes
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is this the type of test that is likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
Did the execution of the MAT include paired samples?	No
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
Does the case definition match the review question?	Yes
Is the execution of the test reported in such detail that reproduction is possible?	Yes
		High	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Unclear
Did all patients receive a reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
		Low