| Study characteristics |
| Patient Sampling |
Serum BDG collected once per patient as part of a prospective study |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
From 2012 to 2015, 99 hematologic patients at high risk for IFI were included. Thirty‐seven of these patients had proven or probable IFI. No information was provided on age or sex of patients |
| Index tests |
Fungitell test using 80 pg/mL as cut‐off for positivity |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Mixed IFI determined by the 2008 EORTC criteria without BDG or GM |
| Flow and timing |
Unclear time frame between sample and reference standard; all received index test and reference standard and were 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? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Was a case‐control design avoided? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
Yes |
|
|
| Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? |
|
Low risk |
|
| Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match 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? |
Unclear |
|
|
| 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 |
|
