Baskaran 2012.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study. Participants above the age of 40 years were recruited from a glaucoma clinic. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 98 eyes (39 narrow angle and 59 open angle). Age: mean (SD) 60.7 ± 12.6 years. Sex: 49 (50%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 69 (70%) Chinese. Exclusions: prior intraocular surgery or penetrating eye injury, corneal disorders such as corneal endothelial dystrophy, pterygium or corneal scars that may preclude satisfactory imaging or those on medications that act on the pupil.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: time domain, Visante; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA. Three AS‐OCT images of each eye were obtained in dark conditions: one image scanning the angle at the nasal and temporal positions, one scanning the superior angle and one scanning the inferior angle. The cut‐off value was a closed angle in two or more quadrants, which was defined as subjective judgement of contact between the iris and angle wall anterior to the scleral spur.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	The ACA was considered ‘closed’ in that quadrant if the posterior pigmented trabecular meshwork could not be seen in the primary position without indentation on gonioscopy (Scheie grade 3 or 4). The eye was classified as having an occludable angle if there were two or more quadrants (≥ 180 degrees) closed.
Flow and timing	98 participants entered the study, 1 was excluded, reason not specified. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: Dr Aung has received research support, travel support and honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA USA, as well as an instrument loan. Participants who underwent peripheral iridotomy were not excluded.
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)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Scheimpflug photography)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (AS‐OCT)
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 (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