| Study characteristics |
| Patient Sampling |
Serum BDG collected twice weekly |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
283 adult hematologic patients, of whom 20 had proven or probable IFI. No information was provided on age or sex of patients |
| Index tests |
Glucatell test using 60 pg/mL as cut‐off for positivity; actual measurements were also reported |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Mixed IFI determined by the 2002 EORTC criteria |
| Flow and timing |
Test within 10 days of reference standard; all received index test and reference standard and were included in the analysis |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
Grant from the Associates of Cape Cod was provided |
| 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? |
Unclear |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
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? |
Yes |
|
|
| 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 |
|
