Hong 2007.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Primary open‐angle glaucoma patients with early VF defects and healthy controls were included. One eye per person was randomly selected.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 120 eyes of 120 participants (72 glaucoma and 48 healthy controls). Age: glaucoma patients mean ± SD, 37.8 ± 15.6 years; controls 38.7 ± 13.6 years. Sex: 54 men (34 glaucoma and 20 controls); 66 women (38 glaucoma and 28 controls). Country: not specified. Ocular comorbidities: no significant cataract, BCVA < 20/40, SE > ±5 D, ocular diseases other than glaucoma, previous intraocular surgery, or narrow angle. Spectrum of glaucoma severity: mean ± SD MD and PSD on the VF test were ‐2.9 ± 1.12 dB and 3.26 ± 0.76 dB, respectively. Control participants: no VF loss by SAP, IOP < 21 mmHg, no ONH/RNFL changes suggestive of glaucoma.
Index tests	Scanning laser polarimetry: GDx VCC (Laser Diagnostic Technologies, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA). No author had conflict of interest.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Manifest glaucoma: optic disc damage (defined as excavation, notching, focal or diffuse atrophy of neuroretinal rim area, vertical cup‐to‐disc ratio more than 0.6, cup‐to‐disc asymmetry between fellow eyes more than 0.2, disc haemorrhage, baring of circumlinear blood vessels, or localised defect of the RNFL) and VF loss (defined as GHT outside normal limits or PSD with P < 5% or 3+ adjacent points below the 5% level on the pattern deviation plot, with at least 1 point below the 1% level). Visual field testing: Humphrey Field Analyzer, model II, 30‐2 SITA‐standard strategy (Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, CA, USA). VF reliability criteria were not reported.
Flow and timing	Reference standard and visual field were performed within 1 week. No patient was reported as excluded from the analysis.
Comparative
Notes	None.
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	No
Was a case‐control design avoided?	No
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Were imaging test's quality assessed?	Unclear
Were any conflict of interest avoided	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Yes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Did all patients receive a reference standard	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk