Baskaran 2007.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study, adult participants were recruited from glaucoma and general ophthalmology clinics. Consecutive participants were enrolled. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 120 eyes (53 narrow angle and 67 open angle). Age: mean (SD) 62.1 ± 11.3, range 30‐90 years. Sex: 68 (56.7%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 87 (72.5%) Chinese, 25 (20.8%) Indian, 8 Malay (6.7%). Exclusions: participants with corneal disorders and uveitis were excluded in the control group. People with a history of laser or intraocular surgery were excluded in the narrow angle group.
Index tests	LACD: determined at the temporal limbus and graded as categories: 0%, 5%, 15%, 25%, 40%, 75% and ≥ 100%. Cut‐off values analysed were 0%, ≤ 5%, ≤ 15%, ≤ 25% and ≤ 40%. SPAC: SPAC categorical grades used for risk of angle closure. Thresholds used were S, P and the combination of S & P.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	An occludable angle was defined as the presence of a Shaffer grade of up to 1 (10 degree iridotrabecular angle) for at least 180 degrees on gonioscopy with or without PAS.
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: Dr Kashiwagi has a Japanese patent on SPAC (Japanese patent application no: 2003‐111322).
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?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (LACD)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	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?			Unclear
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?			Unclear
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?	Unclear
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Unclear 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