Stephens 1982.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Retrospective, consecutive.
Patient characteristics and setting	N with a clinical diagnosis of psychosis: 283. N screened: 283. Age: Mean age at admission 28.7 years. Gender: M 119, F 164. Ethnicity: Not reported. Comorbid disorders: Not reported. Duration of symptoms: Not reported. Concurrent medications used: Not reported. Inclusion criteria: Have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective schizophrenia, or paranoid state (according to DSM‐I). First admissions to any hospital, had been hospitalised for at least 21 days, and had long‐term follow‐ups available. Exclusion criteria: Not reported. Study aim: To compare nine systems to diagnose schizophrenia. Previous treatment for schizophrenia: Not reported. Clinical setting: Inpatient. Country: USA.
Index tests	Description of FRS used: FRS, evaluated though chart review, no further description reported. Professionals performing test: One of the authors. Resolution of discrepancies: Not applicable, only one person rated FRS. How FRS used in study: Diagnosis.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: DSM III Target condition(s): Schizophrenia, schizoaffective, paranoid state. Professionals performing test: One of the authors. Resolution of discrepancies: Not applicable, only one person made diagnoses.
Flow and timing	Study process: One author read charts and classified patients as "process" (expected to have unfavourable outcome) or "nonprocess" (expected to have a favourable outcome). All process patients were given a diagnosis according to Leonhard’s scheme as described by Leonhard (1979) and Astrup et al. (1962). Nonprocess patients were usually diagnosed reactive psychoses or cycloid psychoses. Retrospective diagnosis by chart review, diagnoses by six of the seven sets of criteria. Follow‐up: 5 to 16 years.
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?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		Unclear	Unclear
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
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?	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?	Yes
Did all patients receive an index test?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same index test?	Yes
		Unclear