Table 4

 Summary score of STARD items

ItemYesPartial*NoNA†
*Item 6. Two publications did not mention whether the design was prospective or retrospective but in the text mentioned that the patients were consented for the study.
Item 8. Three studies only cited a reference for technical details of either the index or the reference test.
Item 9. Four articles described units and/or cut-off points but no rationale and were considered to partially fulfil this item. For example one study (table 2 no 7) classified glaucoma severity on the basis of mean deviations (MD) without providing any rationale or reference.
Item 11. Described that some information was provided to the investigators, although it was not known whether the investigators were masked or not
†Item 16. This item was classified as “not applicable” in a retrospective study that only included patients who had both the index and reference tests done (table 2 no 5).
Item 17. This item was classified as “not applicable” in a retrospective study in which frozen histopathological samples were re-analysed with a new diagnostic test (table 2 no 6)
Item 20. Reporting of adverse events was marked as “not applicable” because of the non-invasive nature and safety profile of the tests.
Title, abstract, and keywords18080
Introduction216000
Methods
Participants313300
413030
58080
6132*10
Test methods75650
8113*20
984*40
106460
1161*90
Statistical methods1214020
1320140
Results
Participants1460100
1512040
1640111
Test results179061
1810150
197360
2000016
Estimates2141200
2250110
2340120
2410150
Discussion2516000
Flow diagram1