Tun 2017.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study. 202 phakic participants were recruited from a glaucoma clinic. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 202 eyes (50 narrow angle and 152 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 62.3 ± 9.7 years. Sex: 113 (55.9%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 170 (84.2%) Chinese. Exclusions: history of intraocular surgery or any corneal abnormalities that would preclude imaging.
Index tests	AS‐OCT: spectral domain, HD‐OCT Cirrus‐OCT, model 5000; Carl Zeiss Meditec Dublin, California, USA). Subjective judgement was used to defined a closed angle defined as contact between the iris and trabecular meshwork anterior to the scleral spur in that quadrant. If the scleral was not visible but the trabecular meshwork was, any contact between the trabecular meshwork and the iris was also diagnosed as an occludable angle in that quadrant where two or more quadrants were defined as closed.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	A eye was considered occludable if the posterior trabecular meshwork could not be seen in the primary position without indentation (the Scheie grade 3 or 4) in 2 quadrants (≥ 180 degrees) on gonioscopy.
Flow and timing	There were 202 participants recruited, and there 10 images excluded from AS‐OCT as the examiner was unable to determinate the trabecular meshwork and scleral spur locations. It is not reported whether participants were from the open or narrow angle group. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion
Comparative
Notes	From the 152 participants with an open angle, 70 participants had primary open angle glaucoma and 64 had no glaucoma. Of the original angle closure eyes, 18 had open angles after LPI and were included also in the open angle group. 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?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Low 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