Table 3.

Assessment of studies of diagnostic performance of TEG®/ROTEM® by using the QUADAS-2 [8] tool

	Risk of bias				Applicability concerns
Reference	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard	Flow and timing	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard
Kaufmann 1997 [9]	?	↑	↑	↓	↓	↓	↓
Watts 1998 [10]	↓	?	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓
Schreiber 2005 [11]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Rugeri 2007 [12]	↑	↓	↓	↓	↑	↓	↓
Nekludov 2007 [13]	↑	?	?	↓	↑	↓	↓
Levrat 2008 [14]	↓	?	↑	↓	↓	↓	↑
Park 2008 [57]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Plotkin 2008 [15]	↑	?	?	↑	↑	↓	↓
Carroll 2009 [16]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Jeger 2009 [17]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Kashuk 2009 [49]	↑	?	↑	↓	↑	↓	↓
Kashuk 2009 [18]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Park 2009 [19]	↑	?	?	↓	↑	↓	↓
Schöchl 2009 [58]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Doran 2010 [20]	↑	?	?	↓	↑	↓	↓
Kashuk 2010 [21]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Leemann 2010 [22]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Schochl 2010 [59]	↑	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓
Schochl 2011 [23]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Watters 2010 [24]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Cotton 2011 [25]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Davenport 2011 [26]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Davenport 2011 [50]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Nystrup 2011 [29]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Ostrowski 2011 [30]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Schöchl 2011 [31]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Tauber 2011 [32]	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓
Theusinger 2011 [60]	↑	?	?	↓	↑	↓	↓
Cotton 2012 [33]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Cotton 2012 [34]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Davis 2013 [61]	↑	?	?	↓	↑	↓	↓
Holcomb 2012 [35]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Ives 2012 [36]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Jeger 2012 [52]	↓	?	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓
Kashuk 2012 [37]	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓
Kunio 2012 [62]	?	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Kutcher 2012 [38]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Nascimento 2012 [39]	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓	↓
Ostrowski 2012 [53]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Pezold 2012 [54]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Raza 2013 [55]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Rourke 2012 [40]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Woolley 2013 [42]	↑	?	?	↓	↑	↓	↓
Harr 2013 [44]	?	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Johansson 2013 [45]	↓	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Kornblith 2014 [47]	?	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓
Branco 2014 [48]	↑	?	?	↓	↓	↓	↓

We assessed studies using QUADAS-2 [8] if they evaluated diagnostic performance of TEG®/ROTEM® compared with standard laboratory tests. ↑ denotes high risk of bias, ↓ denotes low risk of bias, and ? denotes unclear risk of bias.