LaCourse 2014.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cross‐sectional, consecutive, prospective
Patient characteristics and setting	Presenting signs and symptoms: enrollees met WHO severe acute malnutrition criteria for children aged 6 to 60 months with weight‐for‐height z‐score ≤ 3 standard deviations below the median, mid‐upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 115 mm, or bilateral pedal oedema Age, months: median (IQR0 18 (12 to 26) Sex, female: 51% HIV infection: 18% Sample size included for analysis: 300 Clinical setting: inpatient Laboratory level where index test was performed: research Country: Malawi World Bank income classification: low income High TB burden country: no High TB/HIV burden country: yes High MDR‐TB burden country: no Prevalence of tuberculosis cases in the study: 0.6%
Index tests	Xpert MTB/RIF
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Pulmonary tuberculosis MGIT; composite reference standard; clinical reference standard
Flow and timing	Index and reference tests were collected within pre‐specified time period
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?	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?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Xpert MTB/RIF)
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?	No
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?	Yes
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Low 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