Tan 2012.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cross‐sectional study. Participants aged 50 years and older were recruited from a community polyclinic, they were systematically sampled (every fifth person registered at the polyclinic) and examined between December of 2005 to July of 2006. Data from the right eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 1465 eyes (315 narrow angle and 1150 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 62.7 ± 7.7 years. Sex: 793 (54.1%) female. Setting: community. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 1317 (90%) Chinese, 27 Malay (1.8%), 102 Indian (7.0%), others (1.2%). Exclusions: history of glaucoma, previous intraocular surgery or laser treatment, penetrating eye injury or corneal disorders preventing anterior chamber assessment.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: time domain,Visante, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA). Scans were centered on the pupil and taken along the horizontal axis,using the standard anterior segment single‐scan protocol. Optimal thresholds were derived from study's data on ACV. LV and ACA.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	An occludable angle was defined if the posterior 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 participants were excluded for the following reasons:11 people could not undergo gonioscopy; 62 participants did not complete AS‐OCT examination or had poor quality AS‐OCT images; 42 participants showed software delineation errors; and the scleral spur was not clearly visible on AS‐OCT images in 467 participants. Data from 1465 eyes were used in the final analysis. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Dr Aung has received research support and honoraria for travel to conferences from Carl Zeiss Meditec.
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