Thomas 1996.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study. Participants were consecutively recruited when they attended an outpatient clinic. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 96 eyes (21 narrow angle and 75 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 45.5 ± 14.9, range 14‐74 years. Sex: 46 (47.9%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: India. Ethnicity: Indian. Exclusions: acute conditions.
Index tests	LACD: original van Herick grading used (grades 1‐ 4). Cut‐off used LACD < 25%. Flashlight: flashlight beam was directed parallel to the iris from the temporal side. The crescent iris shadow thus formed was graded according to the area between the limbus and the pupillary edge that it occupied. Grade 1 was defined as more than half, Grade 2 as half to one‐third; Grade 3 minimal; and Grade 4 as no shadow. Grade 1 and 2 were used as the cut‐offs.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Dynamic gonioscopy was performed with the clinician deciding whether the angle was ‘gonioscopically occludable. A Scheie grade 3 or less was considered to be occludable (middle third of the trabecular meshwork visible).
Flow and timing	100 participants recruited, 4 participants were excluded as they had acute conditions: phacolytic glaucoma (1), phacomorphic glaucoma (2) and a corneal ulcer (1). There were no uninterpretable test results. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: no conflict of interest statement provided.
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)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	No
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
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 (Scheimpflug photography)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (AS‐OCT)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SPAC)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Flashlight)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	No
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
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 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?	No
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High 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