Schirinzi 2015.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Patients received lumbar puncture for diagnostic purposes at the Neurology unit of Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome‐Italy between 2012 and 2014.
Patient characteristics and setting	CSF samples from 28 participants: 14 ADD and 14 iNPH. Sex: 6 males and 8 females for AD and 8 males and 6 females for iNPH Age (SD) (y): 69.85 ± 7.42AD; 73.21 ± 4.63 for iNPH
Index tests	Patients gave CSF samples. The samples were collected in polypropylene tubes, stored on ice and sent to local laboratory and analysed (within 1 hour). Abeta42 was measured using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, obtained from Innogenetics NV, Gent, Belgium. Threshold: 371pg/mL, not pre‐specified, determined by ROC analysis. Were the index test results reported without knowledge of the reference standard? Not reported
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Alzheimer's disease dementia (differential diagnosis of AD from idiopathic NPH) Reference standards: NINCDS‐ADRDA criteria for AD. Subjects received a diagnosis according to iNPH guideline criteria for possible iNPH. It was not reported whether the results of the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test.
Flow and timing	Clinical diagnosis and CSF sample collection was done on the same day.
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?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	No
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Unclear
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Unclear
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?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Unclear
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk