| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
PCR results from all consecutive patients from 3 university children’s hospitals investigated between November 2000 and January 2007 were evaluated in this study |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
The majority of patients had malignant haematological diseases. Patients from 3 university children’s hospitals |
| Index tests |
Aspergillus DNA was detected in clinical samples by an experimentally and clinically validated nested PCR assay as described previously (Bucheidt 2001; Bucheidt 2004; Skladny 1999). |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Invasive aspergillosis; EORTC/MSG criteria |
| Flow and timing |
between November 2000 and January 2007 |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
Results of serological diagnostic techniques (GM assay, Platelia™ Aspergillus enzyme immunoassay; Bio‐Rad) and post‐mortem histological examination were included for clinical classifications |
| Methodological quality |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Risk of bias |
Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection |
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? |
Yes |
|
|
| Was a case‐control design avoided? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
Low |
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests |
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
No |
|
|
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
Low |
| DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard |
| Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
Low |
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing |
| Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were all patients included in the analysis? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
|
