Aggerbeck 2018.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Prospective, cohort, consecutive
Patient characteristics and setting	Enrolment criteria: children with signs of TB, symptoms of TB, or close contact to a sputum smear TB‐positive case Age: < 5 years Sex: 51% female overall (not reported for the < 5‐year subgroup) HIV infection: 25% overall (not reported for the < 5‐year subgroup) Sample size included for analysis: 235 Setting: outpatient Country: South Africa World Bank Income Classification: upper middle High TB burden country: yes High TB/HIV burden country: yes Prevalence of TB cases in the study: composite reference standard 8.1%, microbiological reference standard 1.4%
Index tests	Children with 1 of following symptoms concerning for TB: fever, cough, decreased playfulness, or night sweats
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Active TB not specified as pulmonary Microbiological reference standard and composite reference standard (includes those diagnosed by clinical symptoms)
Flow and timing	Timing between index test and reference standard not reported. No missing data reported for the index tests or reference standards.
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
Was a case‐control design avoided?	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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All 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?			Low concern
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?	Unclear
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