165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10235548)
41. Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyzer, in a glaucomatous population.
Flanagan JG; Wild JM; Trope GE
Ophthalmology; 1993 Jun; 100(6):949-54. PubMed ID: 8510911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Contrasting blue-on-yellow with white-on-white visual fields: Roles of visual adaptation for healthy peri- or postmenopausal women younger than 70 years of age.
Eisner A; Toomey MD; Incognito LJ; O'malley JP; Samples JR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Dec; 47(12):5605-14. PubMed ID: 17122155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Repeatability of frequency doubling technology perimetry (20-1 screening program) and the effect of pupillary dilatation on interpretation.
Parikh R; Muliyil J; George R; Bhat S; Thomas R
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2008; 15(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 18300088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Sensitivity and Specificity of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm and Standard Full Threshold Perimetry in Primary Open-angle Glaucoma.
Bamdad S; Beigi V; Sedaghat MR
Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol; 2017; 6(4):125-129. PubMed ID: 29560366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. [Functional relationship between retinal sensitivity threshold values assessed by standard automated perimetry in glaucoma].
Güerri N; Polo V; Larrosa JM; Egea C; Ferreras A; Pablo LE
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2013 Jun; 88(6):223-30. PubMed ID: 23726307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giangiacomo A; Fontana H; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Feb; 143(2):263-271. PubMed ID: 17178091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
Bass SJ; Feldman J
Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. [Variability of sensitivity thresholds in short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in the central vision field].
Polo Llorens V; Larrosa Poves JM; Pinilla Lozano I; Pablo Júlvez L; Rojo Aragües A; Cuevas Andrés R; Ruiz Moreno O; Honrubia López FM
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2000 Feb; 75(2):85-90. PubMed ID: 11151125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Wild JM; Kim LS; Pacey IE; Cunliffe IA
Ophthalmology; 2006 Feb; 113(2):206-15. PubMed ID: 16458091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Advanced Vision Analyzer-Virtual Reality Perimeter: Device Validation, Functional Correlation and Comparison with Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Narang P; Agarwal A; Srinivasan M; Agarwal A
Ophthalmol Sci; 2021 Jun; 1(2):100035. PubMed ID: 36249304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Comparison of the Humphrey swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies.
Sharma AK; Goldberg I; Graham SL; Mohsin M
J Glaucoma; 2000 Feb; 9(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10708227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. [Evaluation of the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm, a new thresholding algorithm, of the Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects].
Tsuji A; Inazumi K; Yamamoto T; Kitazawa Y
Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Jun; 102(6):359-64. PubMed ID: 9656685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Effect of multizone refractive multifocal contact lenses on standard automated perimetry.
Madrid-Costa D; Ruiz-Alcocer J; García-Lázaro S; Albarrán-Diego C; Ferrer-Blasco T
Eye Contact Lens; 2012 Sep; 38(5):278-81. PubMed ID: 22878381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect.
Yenice O; Temel A
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(2):209-12. PubMed ID: 15812761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies.
Shirato S; Inoue R; Fukushima K; Suzuki Y
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1999 Jan; 237(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 9951638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Population norms for frequency doubling perimetry with uncorrected refractive error.
Ramesh SV; George R; Soni PM; Palaniappan L; Raju P; Paul PG; Ramsathish S; Vijaya L
Optom Vis Sci; 2007 Jun; 84(6):496-504. PubMed ID: 17568319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry.
Hudson C; Wild JM; O'Neill EC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1994 Jan; 35(1):268-80. PubMed ID: 8300355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Nomograms for Converting Perimetric Sensitivity From Full Threshold and SITA Fast to SITA Standard in Patients With Glaucoma and Healthy Subjects.
Giammaria S; Vianna JR; Ohno Y; Iwase A; Chauhan BC
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2021 Aug; 10(9):2. PubMed ID: 34342610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.
Heijl A; Patella VM; Chong LX; Iwase A; Leung CK; Tuulonen A; Lee GC; Callan T; Bengtsson B
Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Feb; 198():154-165. PubMed ID: 30336129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
