Grewal 2011.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study. Participants aged 40 years and older were recruited from an ophthalmology clinic. Data from the right eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 265 eyes (28 narrow angle and 237 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 55.3 ± 5.1 years, (narrow angle 56.2 ± 6.5; controls 58.3 ± 5.7). Sex: 136 (51.3%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: India. Ethnicity: Indian. Exclusions: history of glaucoma, intraocular surgery, laser treatment, penetrating trauma, and corneal disorders that precluded imaging.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: spectral domain, RTVue 100 (Optovue Inc., Fremont, CA, USA, software version 4.0). Anterior segment morphology was assessed with the corneal adaptor module long (CAM‐L), using the angle scan protocol, which captured 1 x 1024 A‐scans in the nasal and temporal quadrants. Optimal cut‐off values were derived from the study data at AOD500 and TISA 500. Scheimpflug photography: Pentacam (Oculus, software version 1.11). Optimal cut‐off values were derived from the study data using ACD and ACV.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Static gonioscopy, Shaffer grading system was used and an occludable angle was defined as Shaffer grade 1 or less in all four quadrants (360 degrees).
Flow and timing	300 participants were recruited; 35 participants were excluded because of an undetectable scleral spur on AS‐OCT. Data from 265 eyes were included in the final analysis. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: the authors declare 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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (LACD)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Scheimpflug photography)
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 (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