Table 2. Summary of the 30 individual peer-reviewers of the 319 cases.

Reviewer number*	Median score on six point ordinal scale† (IQR)	Number of cases rated as an adverse event‡N (%)	Model-based reviewer operating characteristic
			Sensitivity	Specificity
1	1 (1,2)	22 (7)	0.0562	0.92
2	1 (1,2)	43 (13)	0.2703	0.9824
3	1 (1,3)	51 (16)	0.25	0.9181
4	1 (1,4)	90 (28)	0.5542	0.9532
5	2 (1,3)	55 (17)	0.3524	0.9832
6	2 (1,3)	76 (24)	0.3784	0.883
7	2 (1,4)	84 (26)	0.3992	0.8542
8	2 (1,4)	86 (27)	0.3129	0.7678
9	2 (1,4)	96 (30)	0.4952	0.8671
10	2 (1,5)	103 (32)	0.527	0.8537
11	2 (1,5)	125 (39)	0.7717	0.9366
12	2 (1,5)	134 (42)	0.8347	0.9386
13	2 (1,5)	137 (43)	0.8159	0.9048
14	2 (1,6)	135 (42)	0.794	0.8975
15	3 (1,4)	129 (40)	0.6847	0.838
15	3 (1,5)	130 (41)	0.6964	0.8424
17	3 (1,5)	156 (49)	0.7858	0.7676
18	3 (1,6)	155 (49)	0.8404	0.8207
19	3 (2,4)	93 (29)	0.5815	0.9593
20	3 (2,4)	115 (36)	0.4909	0.7523
21	3 (2,5)	154 (48)	0.7665	0.7627
22	4 (1,5)	162 (51)	0.8889	0.8217
23	4 (1,5)	167 (52)	0.875	0.7804
24	4 (1,5)	171 (54)	0.8485	0.7342
25	4 (2,5)	160 (50)	0.8484	0.7984
26	4 (2,5)	176 (55)	0.891	0.7417
27	4 (2,5)	181 (57)	0.9025	0.7224
28	4 (3,4)	190 (60)	0.706	0.4999
29	4 (3,5)	204 (64)	0.9314	0.613
30	5 (2,5)	218 (68)	0.9104	0.513
Overall	3 (2,4)	3798 (40)	0.65	0.82

^*Physician reviewers were numbered based on their median 6-point scale score ranking.

^†1– Definitely due to disease, 6– definitely due to medical care.

^‡Ordinal scale dichotomized: 1–3 ‘Due to disease’; 4–6 ‘Due to medical care’.

^§Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.