Alonso 2010.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling | Cohort study. Methods of patient sampling and recruitment were not reported. Data from both eyes were included in the analysis. | ||
| Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 60 participants, 112 eyes (38 eyes narrow angle and 74 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 51 ± 12, range 21‐72 years. Sex: 32 (53.3%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Brazil. Ethnicity: not reported. Exclusions: not reported. |
||
| Index tests | Scheimpflug photography: HR Pentacam, Oculus Inc, Germany, nasal and temporal angles were studied in the horizontal meridian, cut‐off values were derived from the study data for ACA and ACD. | ||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Static gonioscopy was performed, an occludable angle was classified using a Shaffer grade of 1 (the number of quadrants/degrees occluded were not reported). | ||
| Flow and timing | There were no uninterpretable test results or exclusions reported. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion. | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Notes | Conflict of interest: no conflict of interest statement provided. | ||
| Methodological quality | |||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Unclear | ||
| Was a case‐control design avoided? | Yes | ||
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Unclear | ||
| Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? | Unclear risk | ||
| Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? | Unclear | ||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test (LACD) | |||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Scheimpflug photography) | |||
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | No | ||
| Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | High risk | ||
| Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Low concern | ||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test (AS‐OCT) | |||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SPAC) | |||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Flashlight) | |||
| 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? | Yes | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 | ||