Raguram 1985.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Prospective, randomly selected.
Patient characteristics and setting	N included in study: 90. N in analysis: 90. Age: Not reported. Gender: Not reported. Ethnicity: Not reported. Comorbid disorders: Not reported. Duration of symptoms: Not reported. Concurrent medications used: Not reported. Inclusion criteria: The cases were selected from the outpatients attending the hospital for the first time. 30 cases in each diagnostic category (schizophrenia, affective psychosis and reactive psychosis) were randomly collected. Exclusion criteria: Not reported. Study aim: To study the occurrence of FRS in three major forms of functional psychosis (schizophrenia, affective psychosis and reactive psychosis). To explore the relationship between the occurrence of FRS and the presence of family history of schizophrenia, affective psychosis and reactive psychosis. Previous treatment for schizophrenia: Not reported. Clinical setting: Outpatients. Country: India.
Index tests	Description of FRS used: FRS were evaluated using Mellor's check‐list. Professionals performing test: The investigator. Resolution of discrepancies: Not reported. How FRS used in study: Prevalence.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: Feighner's (1972) diagnostic criteria were employed for making the diagnosis of schizophrenia and affective psychosis. For a diagnosis of reactive psychosis, the criteria used by Pandurangi and Kapur (1979) were employed. Target condition(s): Schizophrenia, affective psychosis and reactive psychosis. Professionals performing test: Not reported. Resolution of discrepancies: Not reported.
Flow and timing	Study process: Outpatients attending the hospital for the first time were diagnosed using Feigner's diagnostic criteria before they were randomly selected for the study. 30 cases from each diagnosis (schizophrenia, affective psychosis and reactive psychosis) were randomly selected and were seen by the investigator in the out‐patient before they were started on medication. FRS were evaluated using Mellor's check‐list, the timing was not reported. FRS were evaluated after this, the timing is not reported. Follow‐up: Not reported. Exclusions: Exclusions not explicitly reported. All participants are 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?	Yes
Was a case‐control design avoided?	No
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
Did the study pre‐specify whether they were using one or multiple FRSs?	Yes
		Unclear	High
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Unclear
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Yes
		Unclear	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Unclear
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Did all patients receive a reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	No
Did all patients receive an index test?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same index test?	Yes
		Unclear