An assessment of nucleic acid amplification testing for active mycobacterial infection

Validity criteria	Description
Grading system
Appropriate comparison	Did the study evaluate a direct comparison of the index test strategy versus the comparator test strategy?	C1 direct comparison CX other comparison
Applicable population	Did the study evaluate the index test in a population that is representative of the subject characteristics (age and sex) and clinical setting (disease prevalence, disease severity, referral filter and sequence of tests) for the clinical indication of interest?	P1 applicable P2 limited P3 different population
Quality of study	Was the study designed to avoid bias? High quality = no potential for bias based on pre-defined key quality criteria Medium quality = some potential for bias in areas other than those pre-specified as key criteria Poor quality = poor reference standard and/or potential for bias based on key pre-specified criteria	Q1 high quality Q2 medium quality Q3 poor reference standard poor quality or insufficient information

The appraisal of intervention studies pertaining to treatment safety and effectiveness was undertaken using the Downs and Black (1998) checklist, which was used for trials and cohort studies. Studies of diagnostic accuracy were assessed using the QUADAS-2 quality assessment tool (Whiting et al. 2011), whereas SRs included in the last step of the linked analysis were assessed with the PRISMA checklist (Liberati et al. 2009).