Power associated with the test of the hypotheses versus .

<p>For each simulation setting where (or, equivalently, ), power was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations that produced 95% confidence intervals for that excluded the value . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was 40%).</p

Percentage of simulations producing indirect estimates of exceeding a given threshold corresponding to the simulation settings where .

<p>Four different thresholds were considered for each simulation setting: 1.40, 1.52, 1.75 and 2.05. These thresholds were chosen to represent an approximate increase of 20%, 30%, 50% and 75% in the value of . Reported percentages quantify the degree to which Bucher's method over-estimates. (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Percentage of simulations producing indirect estimates of exceeding a given threshold corresponding to the simulation settings where (or, equivalently, ).

<p>Four different thresholds were considered for each simulation setting: 1.38, 1.49, 1.72 and 2.01. These thresholds were chosen to represent an approximate increase of 20%, 30%, 50% and 75% in the value of . Reported percentages quantify the degree to which Bucher's method over-estimates. (Note: The true average event rate in group A was 40%).</p

Type I error associated with the test of the hypotheses versus .

<p>For each simulation setting where (or, equivalently, ), Type I error was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations that produced 95% confidence intervals that excluded the value . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Coverage of the 95% confidence interval estimation method of Bucher for .

<p>For each simulation setting, coverage was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations producing confidence intervals for that captured the true value of . For settings where , the true value of was . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Coverage of the 95% confidence interval estimation method of Bucher for .

<p>For each simulation setting, coverage was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations producing confidence intervals for that captured the true value of . For settings where , the true value of was . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Primary and Secondary Outcomes, and Treatment Effects.

<p>Primary and Secondary Outcomes, and Treatment Effects.</p

Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients, by group assignment.

<p>Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients, by group assignment.</p

The modified Adverse Drug Event clinical decision rule used to identify patients at high-risk for adverse drug events in the emergency department.

<p><b>[<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0170495#pone.0170495.ref017" target="_blank">17</a>]</b> PCIS = patient care information system.</p