Khor 2010.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cross‐sectional study. Participants aged 50 years or older were recruited from a non‐ophthalmic community clinic. Data from the right eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 1853 eyes (380 narrow angle and 1473 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 63.4±8.1, range 50‐93 years. Sex: 1103 (52.4%), female. Setting: community. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 1883 (89.5%) Chinese, 44 (2.1%) Malay, 154 (7.3%) Indian and 23 (1.1%) other. Exclusions: history of intraocular surgery or penetrating trauma, previous anterior segment laser treatment, or a history of glaucoma.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: time‐domain, Visante, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA. All four quadrants were examined. A subjective cut‐off was used whereby an occludable was defined by contact between the iris and angle wall anterior to the scleral spur in any quadrant.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Static gonioscopy; an occludable angle was defined as the posterior trabecular meshwork not being seen in the primary position without indentation (Scheie grade 3 or 4) in one or more quadrants (≥ 180 degrees).
Flow and timing	There were 2104 participants originally studied; 251 (11.9%) eyes were uninterpretable as at least one of the quadrants could not be classified due to poor image quality on the AS‐OCT images. Data from 1853 eyes were included in the final analysis.The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: Carl Zeiss Meditec loaned the AS‐OCT for the study. Dr Aung has received financial support and honoraria for travel to conferences from Carl Zeiss Meditec. Patient characteristics: reported ethnicity and gender demographics was based on original 2104 participants recruited. Data reported compared a range of closed angles observed on gonioscopy and AS‐OCT. Data extracted for the review; occludable angle defined on gonioscopy at >= 90 degrees and a closed angle observed on AS‐OCT in one quadrant or more.
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