Wu 1990.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	Prospective, randomly selected.
Patient characteristics and setting	N with a clinical diagnosis of psychosis: 132. N screened: 132. Age: 15‐63 years old. Gender: M 78, F 54. Ethnicity: Not reported. Comorbid disorders: Not reported. Duration of symptoms: Not reported. Concurrent medications used: Not reported. Inclusion criteria: Not reported. Exclusions criteria: Not reported. Study aim: Diagnostic specificity by Schneider's first rank symptoms. Previous treatment for schizophrenia: Not reported. Clinical setting: Inpatients. Country: China.
Index tests	Description of FRS used: "11 items of FRS and patients" . Professionals performing test: "Two experienced doctors". Resolution of discrepancies: Not reported. How FRS used in study: Diagnosis.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: "standards set in the 1984 Mount Huangshan Conference". Target condition(s): Schizophrenia, Manic depression psychosis, Hysterical psychosis, Mental deficiency with mental disorder, Epileptic mental disorder, Traumatic mental disorder, Alcoholic psychosis. Professionals performing test: Not reported. Resolution of discrepancies: Not reported.
Flow and timing	Study process: Patients were randomly selected from the inpatient ward. The diagnosis was based on the standards set in the 1984 Mount Huangshan Conference. According to the 11 items of FRS and patients’ medical history, two experienced doctors conducted psychiatric examination to determine the patients’ FRS symptoms. Follow‐up: Not reported.
Comparative
Notes	Reference standard, Mount Huanshan Conference is an early version of Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders, CCMD.
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?	Unclear
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
		Low	Unclear
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?	Unclear
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
		Unclear	Unclear
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Unclear
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
Did all patients receive a reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Unclear
Did all patients receive an index test?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same index test?	Yes
		Unclear