Mussa 2019.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Study design: cross‐sectional study Recruitment: did not state consecutive or random sampling Study period: Not reported Population: 59 suspected patients with P falciparum infection from different clinical centers were recruited. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not reported
Patient characteristics and setting	Sex: 45.8% male, 54.2% female Age: Not reported Setting: different clinics in Omdurman, Sudan Malaria transmission: Not reported
Index tests	RDT brand(s): Test Malaria Pf/Pv rapid test cassette (Alltest Biotech, China) Batch number: not reported Lot testing: not reported Storage conditions: Unclear, reported manufacturer's instructions were followed for use Blinding: not reported
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition(s):P falciparum Reference standard(s): PCR PCR details: Did not report who performed PCR. Did not report detection limit. Blinding: not reported
Flow and timing	Appropriate interval between index test and reference standard: one blood sample taken from each patient. Invalid test results: None reported.
Comparative
Notes	Contacted author specifically for P vivax results.
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
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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All 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?	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