Table 2. Quality assessment of included studies using DATA-CARE.

Study	Study population	Data	Algorithm development	Outcome	Report transparency	Score
Singh et al 32	15	12	10	15	12.5	64.5*
Azriel et al49	7.5	10.5	12.5	12.5	10	53
Rooney et al50	15	4.5	10	15	10	54.5
Badke et al51	12.5	10.5	15	15	12.5	65.5*
Joram et al52	15	10.5	10	10	10	55.5
Amiri et al53	5	6	10	15	2.5	38.5
Castineira et al54	7.5	13.5	7.5	12.5	2.5	43.5
Sorensen et al55	12.5	7.5	10	10	12.5	52.5
Bose et al56	5	10.5	10	12.5	12.5	50.5
Marsillio et al57	15	6	15	5	15	56
Messinger et al58	15	9	7.5	5	7.5	44
Matam et al (2019)59	7.5	7.5	12.5	10	7.5	45
Kamaleswaran et al60	7.5	6	12.5	12.5	7.5	46
Rusin et al61	12.5	6	10	10	12.5	51
Zhang et al62	5	7.5	12.5	0	5	30
Biswas et al63	12.5	7.5	12.5	5	12.5	50
Si et al64	2.5	10.5	5	7.5	2.5	28
Martin et al65	15	9	7.5	15	10	56.5
Kirschen et al66	15	7.5	12.5	12.5	15	62.5*
Matam et al (2014)67	6.5	9	7.5	2.5	2.5	28
Izquierdo et al68	0	9	10	5	0	24
Zoodsma et al69	15	9	10	12.5	10	56.5
Tabassum et al70	5	10.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	38
Liu et al71	15	13.5	15	15	15	73.5*
van Twist et al† (EEG)72	12.5	12	12.5	15	12.5	64.5*
Macabiau et al73	7.5	12	12.5	10	2.5	44.5
Le et al74	7.5	12	12.5	10	2.5	44.5
Kwon et al75	12.5	7.5	10	12.5	12.5	55
Hunfeld et al76	15	9	12.5	12.5	12.5	61.5*
van Twist et al† (ECG)77	12.5	17	12.5	15	15	72*
Silva et al78	15	7.5	12.5	12.5	12.5	60*
Mean (SD)	10.5 (4.5)	9.4 (2.7)	10.9 (4.1)	10.6 (4.1)	9.2 (4.6)	50.6 (12.6)

Note there are two pairs of studies with a similar author, where additional information is provided in brackets for distinction.

^*Studies with a high quality (≥60 points).

^†Study by same author as the present study.

DATA-CARE, Data Assessment Tool for Algorithm Critical Appraisal and Robust Evidence.