330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10892863)
1. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jul; 41(8):2201-4. PubMed ID: 10892863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
Chauhan BC; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. [Reliability of successive automated static perimetry].
Wu JS; Wang DB; Wang JH
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2003 Dec; 39(12):731-5. PubMed ID: 14769224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. [The value of frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma screening of aged 40 or more population].
Li JJ; Xu L; Zhang RX; Sun XY; Yang H; Zou Y; Zhao JL
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2005 Mar; 41(3):221-5. PubMed ID: 15840362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [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]
12. Relationship between Humphrey 30-2 SITA Standard Test, Matrix 30-2 threshold test, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients.
Bozkurt B; Yilmaz PT; Irkec M
J Glaucoma; 2008; 17(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 18414106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study (LoGTS) study design and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients.
Krupin T; Liebmann JM; Greenfield DS; Rosenberg LF; Ritch R; Yang JW;
Ophthalmology; 2005 Mar; 112(3):376-85. PubMed ID: 15745762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma.
Bjerre A; Grigg JR; Parry NR; Henson DB
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Nov; 45(11):4035-40. PubMed ID: 15505053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Number of stimuli as a reliability parameter in perimetry.
Zulauf M; Caprioli J; Boeglin RJ; Lee M
Ger J Ophthalmol; 1992; 1(2):86-90. PubMed ID: 1477631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons.
Kerrigan-Baumrind LA; Quigley HA; Pease ME; Kerrigan DF; Mitchell RS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Mar; 41(3):741-8. PubMed ID: 10711689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Visual field changes after transient elevation of intraocular pressure in eyes with and without glaucoma.
Chan KC; Poostchi A; Wong T; Insull EA; Sachdev N; Wells AP
Ophthalmology; 2008 Apr; 115(4):667-72. PubMed ID: 17716733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual-field defects in open-angle glaucoma.
Clement CI; Goldberg I; Healey PR; Graham S
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 May; 93(5):582-8. PubMed ID: 18669543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
