Salleh 1992.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Prospective, selection of patients not reported.
Patient characteristics and setting	N included in study: 221. N in analysis: 221. 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: First visit adult Malay patients diagnosed as having functional psychosis and attending psychiatric facilities at the hospital. Exclusion criteria: Patients with doubtful organic status. Study aim: Prevalence of FRS in functional psychosis and utility of FRS as diagnostic tool. Previous treatment for schizophrenia: No previous treatment. Clinical setting: Inpatients. Country: Malaysia.
Index tests	Description of FRS used: 11 FRS used. Patients interviewed based on a standard questionnaire*. Presence of FRS was rated as defined by Mellor but combining the three components of passivity phenomenon into one. Professionals performing test: Author or one of the three senior psychiatric house staff. Resolution of discrepancies: All discrepancies were settled with a consensus opinion. Interrater reliability established in a pilot study conducted prior to this was continuously checked by the author throughout the study. All cases initially seen by the house staff for instance were reviewed by the author within 48h of the initial interview. How FRS used in study: Prevalence and diagnosis.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: ICD‐9. Target condition(s): Schizophrenia, affective psychoses, paranoid state, other non‐organic psychoses. Professionals performing test: Two psychiatrists. Resolution of discrepancies: Not reported. Diagnosis had to be agreed by two psychiatrists.
Flow and timing	Study process: First visit adult patients attending psychiatric facilities entered into the study. Diagnoses made using the ICD‐9 criteria. Patients interviewed for FRS within 24 hours of admission by author or senior psychiatric house staff. All cases initially seen by the house staff reviewed by author within 48 hours of initial interview. Follow‐up: Not reported. Exclusions: Not explicitly reported.
Comparative
Notes	*Unclear whether FRS interview was PSE".
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 case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
		Unclear	Low
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?	No
		Unclear	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?	Unclear
		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?	Yes
Did all patients receive an index test?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same index test?	Yes
		Low