Muto 2019.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling | Case‐control study. Participants with newly diagnosed acute primary angle closure (APAC), PACS and normal age‐matched controls were recruited between January 2010 and July 2017. Data from one eye were included in the analysis. | ||
| Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 506 eyes (48 narrow angle and 458 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 74.0 ± 7.0 years, (narrow angle 74.1 ± 7.7 years; controls 73.6 ± 6.9). Sex: 280 (55.3%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Japan. Ethnicity: Japanese. Exclusions: pseudophakia, previous iridotomy or iridectomy, or those with bilateral acute primary angle closure. |
||
| Index tests | Scheimpflug photography: Oculus Pentacam HR, optimal cut‐off's were derived from the study data for the following parameters; ACA, ACD (central and peripheral) and ACV. | ||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Gonioscopy, an occludable angle was defined as having appositional contact between the peripheral iris and the posterior trabecular meshwork in 3 or more quadrants (≥ 270 degrees). | ||
| Flow and timing | There were no uninterpretable test results or exclusions reported. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion. | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Notes | Conflict of interest: authors reported no conflict of interest. Diagnostic thresholds for males and females were reported separately for all the parameters. |
||
| Methodological quality | |||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Unclear | ||
| 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) | |||
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Unclear | ||
| 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) | |||
| 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? | Unclear | ||
| Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Unclear 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? | Unclear | ||
| Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
| Did all patients receive a reference standard | Yes | ||
| Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Unclear risk | ||