Sun 2020a.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling |
Purpose: algorithm development for estimating risk COVID‐19 Design: cross‐sectional, retrospective study Recruitment: patients presenting at the designated national outbreak screening centre and tertiary care hospital in Singapore for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing. Patients were either self‐referred, referred from primary care facilities, or were at‐risk cases identified by national contact tracing efforts (recruited n = 991) Sample size: n = 788 (n = 54) Inclusion criteria: patients presenting to the centre:
Exclusion criteria: PCR results not available at time of data collection ‐ no electronic medical records ‐ unavailable vital sign records |
||
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Facility cases: positive SARS‐CoV2 RT‐PCR test Facility controls: all SARS‐CoV‐2 RT‐PCR results were negative (minimum 2 test negatives in high‐risk patients, minimum 1 test low‐risk patients) Country: Singapore Dates: 26 January 2020‐16 February 2020 Symptoms and severity: 252 (33.2%) symptoms > 5 days at presentation, 75 (9.5%) any comorbidity
Demographics: median age 34 years (range 7 years‐98 years, IQR 27‐45) (cases median 42 years, range 16‐79; controls 34 years (range 7‐98); M/F: 48.3%/51.7% F (cases M: 88 (88.9%)) Exposure history: contact with a known COVID‐19 case (20.1% (32/54 cases (59.3%)); 126/734 controls (17.2%), contact with travellers from China (22.1%, 15/54 cases (27.8%); 42/734 controls (5.7%)), recent travel history, and visit to hospital in China within 14 days prior to symptom onset (0.8%) |
||
| Index tests |
|
||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
|
||
| Flow and timing | Time interval not specified | ||
| 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? | Yes | ||
| Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? | Yes | ||
| Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? | High risk | ||
| Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? | High | ||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests) | |||
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | No | ||
| Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | High risk | ||
| Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Low concern | ||
| 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? | No | ||
| Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Low risk | ||
| Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? | Low concern | ||
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
| Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Unclear | ||
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
| Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
| Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Low risk | ||