Dunn 2019.

Study characteristics
General information	Objective  Prediction model compared Journal Surgery Research and Practice Country USA Study design Retrospective cohort study
Participants	Number of included patients 503 Surgical specialty Kidney transplant surgery Age Median 52 years (IQR = 42 to 61) Male sex 58.4% High‐risk surgery Not reported Insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus 28.4% History of ischaemic heart disease Not reported History of congestive heart failure Not reported History of cerebrovascular events Not reported 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: ASC‐NSQIP‐MICA Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 2: PORT model Objective: prediction model compared Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable
Outcome	Outcome category Myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest Full outcome definition Not applicable Prediction horizon 30 days and one‐year events
Analysis	Number of outcomes 31         Handling missing data No information on handling missing data Discrimination reported? No Calibration reported? No Reclassification reported? No
PROBAST: Applicability	Domain 1: Participant selection High Justification: only kidney transplants Domain 2: Predictors High Justification: definition of ischaemic heart disease is different from the definition in the development study and no information on blinding Domain 3: Outcome High Justification: outcome is myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, which is different from the definition from the development study Overall judgement High Justification: only a selected group of patients was included; predictor definitions were different from the predictor definitions used in the development study. In addition, outcome definition was different compared to the development study.
Notes	—
Item	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Domain 1: Participant selection	Yes	Although only patients undergoing kidney transplant surgery were included, participant selection was appropriate and the RCRI model can be applied in these patients.
Domain 2: Predictors	No	Definition of ischaemic heart disease is different from the definition in the development study and no information on blinding.
Domain 3: Outcome	Unclear	No information on how myocardial infarction is defined/diagnosed.
Domain 4:  Analysis	No	Low number of outcomes; complete case analyses; c‐statistic was not provided for the RCRI alone; no information on calibration and reclassification.
Overall judgement	No	Patient selection was appropriate. However, predictors were defined differently compared to predictor definitions used in the development study. In addition, the number of outcomes was low, complete case analysis was performed and no calibration and reclassification was reported.