Liang 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Based on epidemiological history, clinical and radiological manifestations, cases with possible or probable COVID‐19 were sent for panel discussion. Paediatric patients were not included.
Patient characteristics and setting	Setting: fever clinic, pre‐screened Site: Peking University Third Hospital from 21 January‐15 February 2020 Country: China Symptoms and severity: on presentation, most patients (85.7%) had fever with a mean body temperature of 37.8. Cough (42.9%), expectoration (33.3%), fatigue (57.1%), headache or dizziness (38.1%) were common symptoms. Other symptoms included shortness of breath, myalgia or arthralgia, sore throat, nasal symptoms and diarrhoea. Demographics: male/female Age: 24‐85 years (median 42.0, range 34.5‐66) Exposure history: imported cases from Wuhan City or Hubei Province 6 (28.6%); known contact with individuals from Wuhan or Hubei 1 (4.8%); known contact with cases of confirmed COVID‐19 5 (23.8%); family aggregation onset 7 (33.3%) Time since onset of symptoms: between 2 and 10 days
Index tests	Not much information reported. For all index tests, see Table 4
Target condition and reference standard(s)	RT‐PCR. Laboratory testing of 2019‐nCoV in throat swabs was performed by both Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Haidian District CDC. 2019‐nCoV infection was target condition
Flow and timing
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?	No
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	No
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?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	No
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
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?		High risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			High
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?	No
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk