Vilarino‐Rico 2015.

Study characteristics
General information	Objective  Prediction model compared Journal Annals of Vascular Surgery Country Spain Study design Prospective cohort study
Participants	Number of included patients 385 Surgical specialty Vascular surgery Age Mean 67.8 years (SD 8.3 years) Male sex 86.5% High‐risk surgery Not reported Insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus Not reported  History of ischaemic heart disease 26.7% History of congestive heart failure Not reported History of cerebrovascular events 17.3% 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: Halm score Objective: prediction model compared  Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable      Predictor 2: Tu score Objective: prediction model compared  Category: prediction model Scale: not applicable Threshold: not applicable Assay/device: not applicable
Outcome	Outcome category MACE Full outcome definition Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death (fatal stroke, fatal acute myocardial infarction, fatal congestive heart failure, sudden cardiac death and death due to ruptured aortic aneurysm  Prediction horizon During follow‐up up to 5 years
Analysis	Number of outcomes 92 Handling missing data No information on handling missing data Discrimination reported? Yes Calibration reported? No 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 Unclear Justification: no information on individual RCRI predictor definitions Domain 3: Outcome High Justification: MACE outcome is different from the MACE definition used in the development study Overall judgement High Justification: patients selected were generalisable to the patient population used in the RCRI development study. However, there was no/unclear information on predictor definitions and 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 vascular surgery were included, participant selection was appropriate and the RCRI model can be applied in these patients.
Domain 2: Predictors	Unclear	No information on individual RCRI predictor definitions.
Domain 3: Outcome	Unclear	No definitions were provided for the separate composite outcomes and no information on blinding.
Domain 4:  Analysis	No	Low number of outcomes, complete case analysis and no reporting on calibration measures.
Overall judgement	No	Patient selection was appropriate. However, predictor and outcome definitions were unclear/not reported including their assessment. Furthermore, the number of outcomes was low, complete case analysis was performed and inappropriate reporting of performance measures.