165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10235548)
1. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; Hancock SA; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 May; 40(6):1152-61. PubMed ID: 10235548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; O'Neill EC; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Aug; 40(9):1998-2009. PubMed ID: 10440254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.
Artes PH; Iwase A; Ohno Y; Kitazawa Y; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Aug; 43(8):2654-9. PubMed ID: 12147599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing.
Wall M; Punke SG; Stickney TL; Brito CF; Withrow KR; Kardon RH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Feb; 42(2):528-37. PubMed ID: 11157893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Ophthalmology; 2006 Jul; 113(7):1092-7. PubMed ID: 16815399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma].
Nordmann JP; Brion F; Hamard P; Mouton-Chopin D
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Oct; 21(8):549-54. PubMed ID: 9833219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of cataract extraction on frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Kook MS; Yang SJ; Kim S; Chung J; Kim ST; Tchah H
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Jul; 138(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 15234286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Schaumberger M; Schäfer B; Lachenmayr BJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jun; 36(7):1390-7. PubMed ID: 7775117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Different strategies for Humphrey automated perimetry: FASTPAC, SITA standard and SITA fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
Roggen X; Herman K; Van Malderen L; Devos M; Spileers W
Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2001; (279):23-33. PubMed ID: 11344712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Statistical aspects of the normal visual field in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Wild JM; Cubbidge RP; Pacey IE; Robinson R
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1998 Jan; 39(1):54-63. PubMed ID: 9430545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
Conway ML; Hosking SL; Zhu H; Cubbidge RP
BMC Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 14():166. PubMed ID: 25539569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast for following visual fields in prepubertal idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Stiebel-Kalish H; Lusky M; Yassur Y; Kalish Y; Shuper A; Erlich R; Lubman S; Snir M
Ophthalmology; 2004 Sep; 111(9):1673-5. PubMed ID: 15350321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mild learning effect of short-wavelength automated perimetry using SITA program.
Fogagnolo P; Tanga L; Rossetti L; Oddone F; Manni G; Orzalesi N; Centofanti M
J Glaucoma; 2010; 19(5):319-23. PubMed ID: 19855293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Glass E; Schaumberger M; Lachenmayr BJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Aug; 36(9):1847-54. PubMed ID: 7635658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population.
Akar Y; Yilmaz A; Yucel I
Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(5):329-33. PubMed ID: 18617757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Clinical experiences with the "Swedish interactive threshold algorithm" (SITA)].
Remky A; Arend O
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2000 Mar; 216(3):143-7. PubMed ID: 10773977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Ophthalmology; 2002 Jun; 109(6):1052-8. PubMed ID: 12045043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):5029-34. PubMed ID: 14578431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
