Rohrig 2004.

Study characteristics
General information	Objective  Biomarkers compared, prediction model compared Journal Anesthesia and Analgesia Country Germany Study design Retrospective cohort study
Participants	Number of included patients 29,437 Surgical specialty Noncardiac surgery Age Not reported Male sex 50.6% High‐risk surgery Not reported   Insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus Not reported 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 to 2 RCRI factors Not reported 3 or more RCRI factors Not reported
Predictors	Predictor 1: ASA Objective: biomarker compared  Category: patient characteristic Scale: categorical Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 2: Model 1 – age, male gender, coronary bypass/PTCA, valvular heart disease, arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, carotid stenosis, hypervolaemia, chronic renal failure, emergency surgery, neurosurgery, major vascular surgery, haematopoietic/lymphatic surgery and gastrointestinal surgery Objective: prediction model compared  Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable   Predictor 3: Model 2 – age, ASA, neurosurgery, thoracic surgery, major vascular surgery, haematopoietic/lymphatic surgery and gastrointestinal surgery Objective: prediction model compared  Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable
Outcome	Number of outcomes 5249 Handling missing data No information on handling missing values Discrimination reported? Yes Calibration reported? Yes  Reclassification reported? No
Analysis	Number of outcomes 5249 Handling missing data No information on handling missing values Discrimination reported? Yes Calibration reported? Yes  Reclassification reported? No
PROBAST: Applicability	Domain 1: Participant selection Low Justification: patient selection was appropriate and generalisable to the population used in the RCRI development study Domain 2: Predictors Low Justification: predictor definitions were clearly defined and comparable to the definitions used in the development study Domain 3: Outcome High Justification: the RCRI was not developed to predict intraoperative events and the outcome is very different from the MACE outcome used in the development study Overall judgement High Justification: patient selection was appropriate and predictor definitions were clearly defined and comparable to definitions used in the development study. However, the outcome used was different from MACE 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.