Andrews 2012.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Case‐control study. Cases were primary angle‐closure suspects (PACS), controls were participants with open‐angles who did not meet the PACS criteria. Data from the right eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 442 eyes (370 narrow angle and 72 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 59.8 ± 4.9 years (narrow angle 59.7 0 ± 5.2; controls 60.2 ± 3.2). Sex: 345 (78.0%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: China. Ethnicity: Chinese. Exclusions: prior intraocular surgery, excessively high risk of acute angle‐closure attack, cataract preventing anterior chamber imaging.
Index tests	LACD: graded as a percentage fraction of adjacent corneal thickness at the temporal limbus: >100%, 75%, 40%, 25%, 15%, 5%, and 0%, cut‐off value used ≤ 25%. SPAC: measurements ranged from 1 to 12, cut‐off value used ≤ 6.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	PACS: participants with pigmented trabecular meshwork not visible in at least two quadrants (≥180 degrees) on gonioscopy (without PAS, glaucomatous optic neuropathy or elevated IOP).
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	Conflicts of interest: Dr Kashiwagi has a Japanese patent on the SPAC (Japanese patent No. 3878164). Dr Friedman currently has the SPAC instrument on loan from Carl Zeiss Meditec.
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Yes
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?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (LACD)
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?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Scheimpflug photography)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (AS‐OCT)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SPAC)
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?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
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