Jin 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Laboratory‐based study presenting data on a total of 8043 specimens for different RT‐PCR tests (n=7251) and ID NOW (n=792). States that a significant proportion of specimens tested by ID NOW were pre‐admission screening specimens for surgical patients but does not report percentage. Eligible data refer to [1] single group study to estimate sensitivity and specificity in paired dry swabs and NP or OP swabs in UTM (n=52) [Additional cases only set: [2] 124 RT‐PCR positive NP/OP samples in UTM samples included 117 'retested with ID NOW' and 7 samples diluted in UTM from 4 positive specimens (the diluted samples cannot be distinguished from the set of 117 and data have been excluded from review) Recruitment: Unclear Prospective or retrospective: Retrospective
Patient characteristics and setting	Setting: Unclear; may be predominantly screening of surgical patients Location: Molecular & Genomic Pathology Laboratory, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia Country: USA Dates: April 23 to 26, 2020 Symptoms and severity: Not stated Demographics: Not stated Exposure history: Not stated
Index tests	Test name: ID NOW (product code not reported) Manufacturer: Abbott Laboratories Target gene(s): RdRp Antigen target: n/a Test method: Isothermal PCR Samples used: 'dry swabs' as per manufacturer EUA protocol Transport media: None Sample storage: No storage reported (appears to be immediate testing) Test operator: Not stated; laboratory staff presumed Definition of test positivity: As per manufacturer Blinding reported: Not stated 'tested in parallel' Timing of samples: Not stated
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: RT‐PCR; cobas SARS‐CoV‐2 Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, CA) using a cobas 6800 analyzer (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc). Either target present considered positive Definition of non‐COVID cases: As above; single PCR negative required Genetic target(s): ORF1/a, E gene Samples used: Not specifically described for subset of paired samples, but for full cohort NP and OP swabs in VTM used (400 uL) Timing of reference standard: Not stated Blinded to index test: Not stated; tested in parallel Incorporated index test: No
Flow and timing	Time interval between index and reference tests: Simultaneous (paired swabs) All patients received same reference standard: Yes Missing data: None reported Uninterpretable results: None reported, no participant flow diagram reported Indeterminate results (index test): None reported Indeterminate results (reference standard): None reported Unit of analysis: Not stated; described as 'paired patient specimens'
Comparative
Notes	Funding: No funding statement reported Publication status: Published Source: Arch Path Lab Med Author COI: No COI statement reported
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?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions?	Unclear
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 2: Index Test (Antigen tests)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Rapid molecular tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Unclear
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?	Unclear
Reference standard does not incorporate result of index test?	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?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
Did all participants receive a reference standard?	Yes
Were results presented per patient?	Unclear
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Unclear risk