Thwe 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Single group study to estimate sensitivity and specificity: symptomatic patients with paired samples tested with both ID NOW (dry NP swabs) and a real‐time RT‐PCR assay (NP swabs in VTM) (n=182) [samples with RT‐PCR using Xpert Xpress (n=21) were excluded from this review] Recruitment: Not stated Prospective or retrospective: Retrospective
Patient characteristics and setting	Setting: Mixed (inpatient and ED); lab‐based study Location: University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston Country: USA Dates: April to May 2020 ('4 weeks data') Symptoms and severity: Not stated Demographics: Not stated Exposure history: Not stated
Index tests	Test name: ID NOW (no product code) Manufacturer: Abbott Antibody: Not stated Antigen target: n/a Test method: Isothermal PCR Samples used: dry NP swabs Transport media: None Sample storage: in plain untreated sterile urine collection tubes Test operator: Not stated Definition of test positivity: As per manufacturer Blinding reported: Yes; conducted first Timing of samples: Not stated
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: One of 4 RT‐PCR assays; 1. Abbott RealTime SARS‐CoV‐2 (Abbott Park, IL, USA) (n=22) 2. Panther Fusion® SARS‐COV‐2 (San Diego, CA, USA) (n=129) 3. Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS‐CoV‐2 (Sunnyvale, CA, USA)) (n=21; excluded from this review) 4. a laboratory developed test (LDT) (n=10) Definition of non‐COVID cases: As for cases (single negative) Genetic target(s): Not stated Samples used: NP in VTM (paired) Timing of reference standard: Not stated Blinded to index test: Not stated Incorporated index test: No
Flow and timing	Time interval between index and reference tests: Paired All patients received same reference standard: Yes Missing data: None reported (review team excluded 21 samples tested with RT‐PCR) Uninterpretable results: None reported Indeterminate results (index test): None reported Indeterminate results (reference standard): None reported; no discrepant analysis Unit of analysis: Patient
Comparative
Notes	Funding: This project did not receive any funding support from any agencies in the public, commercial, or not for‐profit sectors Publication status: Published Source: Diagnostic Microbiol Infect Dis Author COI: All authors have no conflict of interest.
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?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Low 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?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Unclear risk