Just 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Purpose: diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (mild COVID‐19 disease); to identify predictive risk factors for a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 RT‐PCR result in a primary care setting Design: multicentre, cross‐sectional cohort study Recruitment: 26 office‐based specialists for internal and/or general medicine with a full primary care mandate from 14 different locations participated in the study. Suspected COVID‐19 patients for whom a PCR was taken were included. Sample size: n = 374 (40 cases) Inclusion criteria: convenience sample of patients who received PCR in the participating GPs' practices within the study period Exclusion criteria: patients whose tests had been carried out for procedural reasons and did not correspond to a specific clinical indication were excluded (e.g. testing of recovered patients after end of quarantine). There were no other exclusion criteria.
Patient characteristics and setting	Facility cases: suspected patients with a positive PCR test Facility controls: suspected patients with a negative PCR test Country: Germany Dates: 24 March 2020‐17 April 2020 Symptoms and severity: mild to moderate severity Demographics: median age: cases: 52.0 years, controls: 43.5 years gender: % female cases: 65.0%, controls: 57.2% Exposure history: first grade contact (with symptoms): cases: 35.0%, controls 17.4%
Index tests	Cough Sore throat Fatigue Fever Nasal congestion Muscle pain Dyspnoea Headache Anorexia Anosmia Diarrhoea Chills Nausea Vomiting Other
Target condition and reference standard(s)	TC: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection RS: RT‐PCR, sample type not specified
Flow and timing	RS and index tests both taken on admission
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?	No
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
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?			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?	Unclear
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