165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10235548)
21. Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients.
King AJ; Taguri A; Wadood AC; Azuara-Blanco A
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Jun; 240(6):481-7. PubMed ID: 12107516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2.
Huang CQ; Carolan J; Redline D; Taravati P; Woodward KR; Johnson CA; Wall M; Keltner JL
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):917-23. PubMed ID: 18326712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer.
Hirasawa K; Shoji N
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A; Olsson J
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1998 Apr; 76(2):165-9. PubMed ID: 9591946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Schimiti RB; de Vasconcellos JP; Costa VP
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Jun; 84(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 16704696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Evaluation of threshold estimation and learning effect of two perimetric strategies, SITA Fast and CLIP, in damaged visual fields.
Capris P; Autuori S; Capris E; Papadia M
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 18320509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1999 Apr; 77(2):125-9. PubMed ID: 10321523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison of false-negative responses for full threshold and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal observers.
Johnson CA; Sherman K; Doyle C; Wall M
J Glaucoma; 2014; 23(5):288-92. PubMed ID: 23632399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Bengtsson B
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Mar; 44(3):1388-94. PubMed ID: 12601072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A comparison of catch trial methods used in standard automated perimetry in glaucoma patients.
Wall M; Doyle CK; Brito CF; Woodward KR; Johnson CA
J Glaucoma; 2008 Dec; 17(8):626-30. PubMed ID: 19092457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1998 Jun; 76(3):268-72. PubMed ID: 9686835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Converting to SITA-standard from full-threshold visual field testing in the follow-up phase of a clinical trial.
Musch DC; Gillespie BW; Motyka BM; Niziol LM; Mills RP; Lichter PR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Aug; 46(8):2755-9. PubMed ID: 16043847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Evaluation of the high specificity Screening Program (C-20-1) of the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter in clinical practice.
North RV; Jones AL; Hunter E; Morgan JE; Wild JM
Eye (Lond); 2006 Jun; 20(6):681-7. PubMed ID: 15999135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1998 Aug; 76(4):431-7. PubMed ID: 9716329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors.
Singh MD; Jain K
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry.
Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Feb; 50(2):974-9. PubMed ID: 18952921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Relationship of SITA and full-threshold standard perimetry to frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma.
Boden C; Pascual J; Medeiros FA; Aihara M; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2433-9. PubMed ID: 15980232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
