Baskaran 2013.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study. Phakic participants aged 40 years or older were recruited from glaucoma clinics at an eye hospital between January 2011 and July 2011. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 140 eyes (32 narrow angle and 108 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 59.2 ± 8.9 years, (narrow angle 63.7 ± 8.0; controls 57.8 ± 8.8). Sex: 99 (70.7%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 134 (95.7%) Chinese, 2 (1.4%) Malay, 3 (2.1%) Indian and 1 other. Exclusions: participants with corneal disease that precluded imaging of the anterior segment and those with previous uveitis, intraocular surgery, or lid abnormalities were excluded.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: swept source domain, CASIA SS‐1000, Tomey Corporation, Nagoya, Japan. Each eye was scanned with the 3‐dimensional angle analysis scan. Cut‐off values were derived from the study data using ITC analysis for the “ITC index,” which represents the ratio of ITC (angle closure) in degrees to the total angle visible, as a percentage.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	The ACA was considered “closed” on gonioscopy in that quadrant if the posterior pigmented trabecular meshwork could not be seen in the primary position without indentation (Modified Shaffer grade 0 to 2). The eye was classified as having an occludable angle if there were 2 or more closed quadrants (≥180 degrees).
Flow and timing	There were 152 participants, 1 person had a poor‐quality scan, and in 11 people the scleral spur could not be identified, leaving 140 eyes for the final analysis. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Participants who had LPI were not excluded in the recruitment phase. Conflict of interest: authors reported no conflict of interest.
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?			High
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?	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 (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