Winegarner 2019.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Case‐control study. Review of participants with angle closure disease and healthy controls that were examined in a hospital based setting. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 136 eyes (87 narrow angle and 49 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 71.9 ± 8.2 years, range (49‐87). Sex: 84 (61.8%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Japan. Ethnicity: Japanese. Exclusions: intraocular diseases, history of intraocular surgery or iridotomy, secondary glaucoma or over the age of 90 years.
Index tests	Scheimpflug photography: Oculus Pentacam, pre‐specified thresholds (one SD from the mean) were based on the internal normative database for the following parameters; ACA, ACD and ACV.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	An eye with an occludable angle was defined using gonioscopy, where 3 quadrants (≥ 270 degrees) of the posterior trabecular meshwork could not be seen.
Flow and timing	There were no uninterpretable test results or exclusions reported. It was not reported if the index test and reference standard was conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: Miki A has received funding from pharmaceutical companies.
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?	No
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	No
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?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Unclear
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