Choudhari 2019b.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cross‐sectional study. Phakic participants aged 40 years or older attending a rural eye clinic were examined between June 2001 and January 2003. Data from the right eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 888 eyes (271 narrow angle and 617 open angle). Age: median 50 IQR (45‐60). Sex: 497 (55.9%) female. Setting: community. Country: India. Ethnicity: Indian. Exclusions: abnormalities that would preclude visualisation of the peripheral ACD, aphakia, pseudophakia, manifest strabismus or insufficient co‐operation.
Index tests	LACD: original van Herick grading scheme used (grade 1‐4) performed at the temporal angle. Grade 2 or less was used as the cut‐off (≤ 25%).
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Indentation gonioscopy was performed in dim illumination. An occludable angle was defined as the posterior trabecular meshwork not visible in 2 or more quadrants (≥ 180 degrees).
Flow and timing	There were no participants that were excluded or had uninterpretable results. 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?	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?	No
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
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 (Scheimpflug photography)
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?	No
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High 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