Table 5.

Indicators of quality across articles

Author<	Clearly defined purpose%	Approach Adequately described@	Data source/text type described*	Number of docum ents specifi ed*	Number of users specified*	Evaluation metric s reported*!	Inclusion of comparative evaluation*#
Brennan & Aronson, 200316	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Portier et al, 201333	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Freifeld et al, 201427	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Gupta et al, 201419	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Park & Ryu, 201425	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Janies et al, 201528	✓	✓	✓	✓
Jimeno-Yepes et al, 201520	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Karmen et al, 201521	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Liu & Chen, 201523	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Nikfarjam et al, 201524	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Tighe et al, 201532	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Eshleman & Singh, 201618	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Lee & Donovan, 201635	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Marshall et al, 201629	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Topaz et al, 201630	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Sunkureddi et al, 201634	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Cocos et al, 201717	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Cronin et al, 201736	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Lamy et al, 20 1 722	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Lu et al, 201731	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Patel et al, 201726	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓

Note.

^<Studies included in this table have been arranged in chronological order to assess trend over time;

^%A checkmark denotes reviewer judgement of clear statement of the study purpose;

^@A checkmark denotes reviewer judgement of adequate description of the study approach;

^*A checkmark denotes the presence of information in the article;

^!Evaluation metrics include descriptive results, accuracy, area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, recall, or precision;

^#Comparison includes another algorithm or dataset