| Study characteristics |
| Patient Sampling |
Serum BDG collected twice weekly as part of a prospective study |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
64 adult ICU patients with a stay of at least 3 days. Included 1 proven and 5 probable cases of invasive candidiasis. The median age of patients was 60 years (range 19 to 82 years), and 69% were male |
| Index tests |
Fungitell test using 80 pg/mL as cut‐off for positivity |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Invasive candidiasis determined by the 2008 EORTC criteria with BDG excluded |
| 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? |
Yes |
|
|
| 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? |
Yes |
|
|
| 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 |
|
