Full Text Review Studies1,2		Included Studies2,3
Assay Selection	13 published studies	Five studies were disqualified that reported data from early generation cTn assays [43][44][45][46][47] as evaluated by the Expert Panel. Four studies [48][49][50][65] were disqualified for failing to meet quality criteria.  Published studies included:   13 total − 5 − 4 = 4
Assay Threshold	8 published studies	One study [43] was disqualified that reported data from an early generation cTn assay. Three studies [37][52][53] were disqualified for failing to directly address the diagnostic threshold question.  Published studies included:   8 total − 1 − 3 = 4
	1 unpublished study	One study [42] was rated “Good” quality with a “Moderate” effect size. (Study [42] also reported a serial sampling analysis.)  Unpublished studies included:   1 total − 0 = 1
Serial Sampling	5 published studies	Two studies were rated “Fair” [39][56] and three were rated “Good” [26][38][40][42]. Four studies [26][38][40][42][56] had a “Moderate” effect size and one [39], had a “Minimal/None” effect size rating.  Published studies included:   5 total − 0 = 5
	2 unpublished studies	Two studies [42][Christenson, 2014] were rated “Good” with a “Moderate” effect size. (One study [42] also reported an assay threshold analysis.)  Unpublished studies included:   2 total − 0 = 2
Point of Care Testing	11 published studies	Three studies [32][57][58] were excluded for failing to meet quality criteria. Other studies are reported as follows:  1 Study = Good/Moderate [38]  2 Studies = Good/Minimal [43][60]  3 Studies = 2, Fair/Substantial Pos [ 41][59];   1, Fair/Substantial Neg [61]  1 Study = Fair/Moderate [37]  1 Study = Fair/Minimal [62]  Graphically represented as follows:    Eight studies reported inconsistent effects and direction. No recommendation was made.   Published studies included:   11 total − 3 = 8
Total Studies Included = 151 1 In this particular instance, authors use “studies” to denote “reports” or “articles.” 2 While Figure 2 is inclusive of all studies included for evaluation, several studies were removed for failing to meet a specific evaluation criterion or due to cTn assay issues.		Published Studies Included = 4 + 4 + 5 = 13 Unpublished Studies Included = 3 − 1 (2 analyses from same reference study) = 2 Total Studies Included = 13 + 2 = 151
3 Later, authors use “studies” to denote practice “analyses”: For example, “A total of 24 published and 2 unpublished studies (Storrow 2014 [42] was unpublished at time of evaluation) were deemed acceptable for inclusion.” See section “3.0 Evidence review synthesis and results” (1) Six published studies contained data evaluating two practices.   Math: 151 + 6 extra analyses = 21 analyses (2) One unpublished study contained data evaluating two practices.   Math: 21 + 1 extra analysis = 22 analyses (3) Two published studies contained data evaluating three practices.   Math: 22 + 4 extra analyses =     26 Total Analyses