Bryce 2012.

Study characteristics
General information	Objective  Prediction model compared Journal European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Country United Kingdom Study design Prospective cohort study
Participants	Number of included patients 106 Surgical specialty Vascular surgery Age Median 73 years (IQR 66 to 77 years) Male sex 83% High‐risk surgery Not reported Insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus Not reported History of ischaemic heart disease Not reported History of congestive heart failure 12% History of cerebrovascular events 21% Elevated creatinine Not reported 0 RCRI factors Not reported 1 RCRI factor Not reported 2 RCRI factors Not reported 3 or more RCRI factors Not reported
Predictors	Predictor 1: Glasgow aneurysm score  Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model  Scale: continuous  Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 2: V(p)‐POSSUM score  Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model  Scale: continuous  Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 3: Vascular biochemical and haematological outcome model Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model  Scale: continuous  Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 4: Preoperative risk score of the estimation of physiological ability and surgical stress score Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model  Scale: continuous  Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable
Outcome	Outcome category All‐cause mortality; MACE; cardiovascular death      Full outcome definition MACE was defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Cardiac death was defined as death secondary to myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock or intractable dysrhythmia.  Prediction horizon 30‐day events
Analysis	Number of outcomes 9 Handling missing data No missing data Discrimination reported? Yes Calibration reported? No  Reclassification reported? No
PROBAST: Applicability	Domain 1: Participant selection Low Justification:  Domain 2: Predictors Unclear Justification: most RCRI predictor definitions not reported Domain 3: Outcome High Justification: outcome different from the development study Overall judgement High Justification: patient selection was appropriate. However,  there was no/unclear information on predictor definitions. In addition, the outcome used was different from MACE in the development study.
Notes
Item	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Domain 1: Participant selection	Yes	Although only patients undergoing vascular surgery were included, participant selection was appropriate and the RCRI model can be applied in these patients.
Domain 2: Predictors	Unclear	Most predictor definitions not reported including RCRI definition factors.
Domain 3: Outcome	Yes	Clearly defined outcome definitions and appropriate adjudication of outcomes.
Domain 4:  Analysis	No	Very low sample size; calibration not assessed.
Overall judgement	No	Appropriate patient selection and clearly defined outcome. However, there was no/unclear information on predictor definitions. In addition, the sample size was low and calibration was not assessed.