Study characteristics |
Patient Sampling |
Serum BDG collected twice weekly in the absence of fever, and daily if fever was present, as part of a prospective study |
Patient characteristics and setting |
95 adult hematologic patients hospitalized for myeloablative chemotherapy between 2002 and 2006. There were 30 cases of proven or probable IFI. The average age of patients was 57 years (range 19 to 77 years), and 61% were male |
Index tests |
Wako test using 11 pg/mL as cut‐off for positivity |
Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Mixed IFI as determined by the 2002 EORTC criteria |
Flow and timing |
Median time interval between sample and reference standard was 7.5 days, with a range of 0 to 51 days; 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? |
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? |
No |
|
|
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
Were all patients included in the analysis? |
Yes |
|
|
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? |
|
High risk |
|