Kempker 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Purpose: diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (mild COVID‐19 disease); to describe the most common and distinguishing clinical symptoms among HCWs who underwent screening for COVID‐19 Design: cross‐sectional cohort study, prospective data collection Recruitment: HCW with a viral‐like illness, triaged to the employee health services staff for a virtual clinical assessment and then scheduled for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing Sample size: n = 283 (51 cases) Inclusion criteria: HCW with symptoms consistent with a viral‐like illness Exclusion criteria: none specified
Patient characteristics and setting	Facility cases: HCW with positive RT‐PCR test for SARS‐CoV‐2 Facility controls: HCW with negative RT‐PCR test for SARS‐CoV‐2 Country: Georgia, USA Dates: 18 March 2020‐14 April 2020 Symptoms and severity: not specified, mild to moderate severity (from table) Demographics: age: not specified M%/F%: overall 19/81 Exposure history: patient contact in general: cases: 96%, controls 88%. Contact with COVID‐19 patients: cases 33%, control 36%
Index tests	Fever Fatigue Chills Myalgia Cough Dyspnoea Nasal congestion Sore throat Diarrhoea Anosmia Ageusia
Target condition and reference standard(s)	TC: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection RS: RT‐PCR, nasopharyngeal swab
Flow and timing	Not specified
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?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions?	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?	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?	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?		Unclear risk