Kim 2014.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Case‐control study. Study participants were identified by retrospective medical review and then examined between January 2010 and August 2013 in glaucoma and cataract clinics. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 202 eyes, (101 narrow angle and 101 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 64.5 ± 6.2 years. Sex: 110 (54.4%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Korea. Ethnicity: Korean. Exclusions: prior intraocular surgery or if AS‐OCT images were of poor quality.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: time domain, Visante, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA. Mode to capture; one cross‐sectional horizontal scan. Cut‐off values were derived from the study data at examining lens vault and ACD.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Static gonioscopy; an occludable angle was defined when the pigmented posterior trabecular meshwork was not visible for 180 degrees or more in the primary position, with PAS and/or raised IOP.
Flow and timing	There were 124 narrow angles and 112 age‐matched controls. Of the 112 control participants matched, 11 had low‐quality images consequently data from 11 control participants were eliminated. Data from 202 eyes were included in the final analysis. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: authors reported no conflict of interest. All cases had an LPI.
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?	No
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		High 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