Wong 2009b.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Cohort study. Recruited from a glaucoma clinic. Data from one eye were included in the analysis.
Patient characteristics and setting	Sample size: 45 eyes (17 narrow angle and 28 open angle). Age: mean (SD), 62.5 ± 9.1 years. Sex: 28 (62.2%) female. Setting: secondary care. Country: Singapore. Ethnicity: 41 (91.1%) Chinese. Exclusions: history of previous intraocular surgery or penetrating trauma or any cornea opacities or abnormalities that precluded angle imaging..
Index tests	AS‐OCT: time domain, Visante; Carl Zeiss Meditec HD‐OCT: spectral domain, Cirrus‐OCT; Carl Zeiss Meditec Dublin, California Subjective cut‐off criteria used for both devices i.e. if there was any contact between the iris and angle wall anterior to the scleral spur in one quadrant.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Gonioscopy, an angle was considered occludable if the posterior trabecular meshwork could not be seen in the primary position without indentation (Scheie grade 3 or 4) in at least 90 degrees.
Flow and timing	There were no uninterpretable test results or exclusions reported. The index test and reference standard were conducted on the same occasion.
Comparative
Notes	Conflict of interest: Dr Wong has received financial support and honoraria for travel to conferences from Carl Zeiss Meditec and Heidelberg Engineering. Dr Friedman has received an instrument loan and has been a consultant for Carl Zeiss Meditec. Dr T. Aung has received grant funding as well as financial support and honoraria for travel to conferences from Carl Zeiss Meditec. Patients who had undergone peripheral iridotomy were not excluded.
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