Narayanaswamy 2010.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cross‐sectional study. Participants aged 50 years or older were recruited from a community polyclinic, they were systematically sampled (every fifth patient registered at the polyclinic) and examined from December of 2005 to June of 2006. Data from both eyes were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 1465 participants (315 participants had at least 1 eye with a narrow angle and 1150 participants had an open angle in both eyes). Age: mean (SD), 62.7±7.7, range 50‐93 years. Sex: 793 (54.1%) female. Setting: community. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 1318 (90.0%) Chinese, 27 (1.8%) Malay, 102 (7.0%), Indian and 8 (1.2%) others. Exclusions: history of intraocular surgery, evidence of aphakia/pseudophakia, or penetrating trauma in the eye; previous anterior segment laser treatment; history of glaucoma; or corneal disorders such as corneal endothelial dystrophy, corneal opacity, or pterygium.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: time domain, Visante; Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc. Single‐scan‐mode protocol: one image scanning the angle at the 3‐ and 9‐o’clock positions followed by one scanning the superior angle at 12 o’clock and one scanning the inferior angle at 6 o’clock. Cut‐off values were derived from the study data for AOD500, AOD750, TISA500, TISA750 and ARA750.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	An eye was defined as having an occludable angle if the posterior pigmented trabecular meshwork was not visible for at least 180 degrees on non‐indentation gonioscopy with the eye in the primary position.
Flow and timing	There were 2047 participants originally studied, 582 were excluded due to; inability to locate the scleral spur (515), poor image quality (28), or software delineation errors (39). Data from 1465 participants were included in the final analysis. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: Dr Friedman reports having been as a paid consultant to Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dr Foster reports receiving honoraria and travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, and Dr Aung reports receiving research funding, honoraria, and travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc.
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?	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