Causse 2011.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cross‐sectional, consecutive, prospective
Patient characteristics and setting	Presenting signs and symptoms: presumptive tuberculosis Age, months: mean 43 Sex, female: not reported HIV infection: 0% Sample size included for analysis: 44 Clinical setting: not reported Laboratory level where index test was performed: central Country: Spain World Bank income classification: high income High TB burden country: no High TB/HIV burden country: no High MDR‐TB burden country: no Prevalence of tuberculosis cases in the study: not reported
Index tests	Xpert MTB/RIF
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Pulmonary TB; tuberculous meningitis Liquid culture (Middlebrook)
Flow and timing	Index and reference tests were collected simultaneously
Comparative
Notes	It is unclear whether those interpreting the reference test were blinded to results of the index test
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	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?			Unclear
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Xpert MTB/RIF)
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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Xpert Ultra)
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?		Unclear 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?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk