Table 1.

CHARMS checklist evaluations for each included study

Study ID	Source of data	Outcomes	Candidate predictors	Sample size/missing data	Attrition	Model development	Model performance/evaluation
Allam 2019	L	L	M	H	H	L	M
Austin 2010	L	L	M	H	L	L	M
Austin 2012	L	L	L	H	H	L	M
Awan 2019	L	L	M	H	H	M	M
Ben‐Assuli 2019	L	M	M	H	H	M	M
Chen 2020	L	L	H	H	H	H	M
Frizzell 2017	L	L	L	H	L	H	M
Golas 2018	L	L	M	H	H	L	M
Kwon 2019	L	L	M	H	H	H	M
Liu 2020	L	L	H	H	H	L	M
Mahajan 2016	L	L	H	H	H	M	M
Mahajan 2020	L	L	H	H	H	H	H
McKinley 2019	L	M	H	H	H	H	M
Miao 2018	L	L	M	H	H	L	M
Mortazavi 2016	L	L	M	L	H	L	M
Padhukasahasram 2015	L	M	H	H	H	M	M
Sohrabi 2019	L	M	H	H	H	H	H
Turgeman 2016	L	L	H	H	H	L	M
Wang 2020	L	L	M	H	H	M	M
Yu 2015	L	L	H	H	H	L	M

H, high risk of bias; L, low risk of bias; M, moderate risk of bias.