Study characteristics |
Patient Sampling |
Serum BDG collected twice weekly as part of a prospective study |
Patient characteristics and setting |
Adult patients with hematological malignancies who had been admitted to the hospital between 2005 and 2010. Of the 378 patients in the study, 143 had proven or probable invasive aspergillosis. The age range of patients was between 20 and 76 years, and most were male (78%) |
Index tests |
Glucatell test using 80 pg/mL as cut‐off for positivity |
Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Invasive aspergillosis determined by the 2002 EORTC criteria |
Flow and timing |
Unclear time frame between sample and reference standard; possible IA cases were excluded from 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? |
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? |
No |
|
|
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? |
|
High risk |
|