Allegorico 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Purpose: diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (mild COVID‐19 disease); to explore the value of lung ultrasonography to predict RT‐PCR test results Design: cross‐sectional cohort study, retrospective data collection Recruitment: consecutive ED patients were included if they had either fever (body temperature > 37.5 °C) and/or history of cough and/or dyspnoea within the previous 48 h as assessed on day 1 Sample size: n = 79 (42 cases) Inclusion criteria: all patients with fever (body temperature > 37.5 °C measured using infrared thermometer) and of cough and/or dyspnoea Exclusion criteria: patients with missing clinical, biochemistry and radiological data (thoracic ultrasound, CT scan)
Patient characteristics and setting	Facility cases: positive RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 Facility controls: negative RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 Country: Italy Dates: 01 March 2020‐30 April 2020 Symptoms and severity: not specified. 75% of all participants had dyspnoea Demographics: median age cases 68.5 years, controls 67.5 years M%/F%: cases 69.0/31.0, controls 67.6/32.4 Exposure history: not specified
Index tests	Body temperature Cough Dyspnoea Respiratory rate
Target condition and reference standard(s)	TC: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection RS: RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 (nasal swab)
Flow and timing	Index tests and RS both taken on day 1
Comparative
Notes	Funding: none declared
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?	No
Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Unclear
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?	No
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		High 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?		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