Davis 2013.

Study characteristics
General information	Objective  Prediction model compared Journal Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia Country Canada Study design Prospective cohort study
Participants	Number of included patients 9519 Surgical specialty Noncardiac surgery Age Mean 66 years (SD = not reported) Male sex 51.5% High‐risk surgery 26.3% Insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus 2.4% History of ischaemic heart disease 18.5% History of congestive heart failure 3% History of cerebrovascular events 7.2% Elevated creatinine 1.4% 0 RCRI factors 55.4%% 1 RCRI factor 33% 2 RCRI factors 9.4% 3 or more RCRI factors 2.1%
Predictors	Predictor 1: RCRI without insulin‐dependent diabetes and preoperative creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 2: RCRI without insulin‐dependent diabetes and eGFR < 30 instead of preoperative creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable  Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable
Outcome	Outcome category MACE Full outcome definition Myocardial infarction, pulmonary oedema or primary cardiac arrest Prediction horizon In‐hospital events
Analysis	Number of outcomes 200       Handling missing data No information on handling missing data Discrimination reported? Yes Calibration reported? Yes  Reclassification reported? Yes
PROBAST: Applicability	Domain 1: Participant selection Low Justification: not applicable Domain 2: Predictors Low Justification: not applicable Domain 3: Outcome Low Justification: not applicable Overall judgement: Low Patient selection was appropriate, predictor and outcome definitions were clearly defined and comparable to the definitions used in the development study.
Notes	—
Item	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Domain 1: Participant selection	Yes	Appropriate participant selection in which patients were selected in whom the RCRI model can be applied.
Domain 2: Predictors	Yes	Clear (RCRI) predictor definitions were described.
Domain 3: Outcome	Yes	Clearly defined outcome definitions and appropriate adjudication of outcomes.
Domain 4:  Analysis	Yes	Clear methodology and appropriate number of outcomes.
Overall judgement	Yes	Patient selection was appropriate; predictor and outcome definitions were clearly defined and comparable to the definitions used in the development study. In addition, methodology used was appropriate including the number of outcomes.