223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11684217)
1. Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation.
Pandit RJ; Gales K; Griffiths PG
Lancet; 2001 Oct; 358(9290):1339-40. PubMed ID: 11684217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.
Johnson LN; Baloh FG
J Natl Med Assoc; 1991 Oct; 83(10):895-8. PubMed ID: 1800764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.
Shahinfar S; Johnson LN; Madsen RW
Ophthalmology; 1995 Jun; 102(6):872-7. PubMed ID: 7777293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma.
Pineles SL; Volpe NJ; Miller-Ellis E; Galetta SL; Sankar PS; Shindler KS; Maguire MG
Arch Ophthalmol; 2006 Mar; 124(3):363-9. PubMed ID: 16534056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Identification of functional visual field loss by automated static perimetry.
Frisén L
Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 92(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 24698019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Oculokinetic perimetry compared with Humphrey visual field analysis in the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Wishart PK
Eye (Lond); 1993; 7 ( Pt 1)():113-21. PubMed ID: 8325400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields.
Hollander DA; Volpe NJ; Moster ML; Liu GT; Balcer LJ; Judy KD; Galetta SL
Br J Ophthalmol; 2000 Oct; 84(10):1185-90. PubMed ID: 11004108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Early detection of glaucoma by means of a novel 3D computer-automated visual field test.
Nazemi PP; Fink W; Sadun AA; Francis B; Minckler D
Br J Ophthalmol; 2007 Oct; 91(10):1331-6. PubMed ID: 17504855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests.
Kerr NM; Chew SS; Eady EK; Gamble GD; Danesh-Meyer HV
Neurology; 2010 Apr; 74(15):1184-90. PubMed ID: 20385890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.
Murray IC; Fleck BW; Brash HM; Macrae ME; Tan LL; Minns RA
Ophthalmology; 2009 Oct; 116(10):2017-26. PubMed ID: 19560207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Visual field screening with a laptop computer system.
Bruun-Jensen J
Optometry; 2011 Sep; 82(9):519-27. PubMed ID: 21871394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss.
Wall M; Doyle CK; Eden T; Zamba KD; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jun; 54(6):3975-83. PubMed ID: 23633660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of an automated confrontation testing device versus finger counting in the detection of field loss.
Bass SJ; Cooper J; Feldman J; Horn D
Optometry; 2007 Aug; 78(8):390-5. PubMed ID: 17662927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Glaucoma diagnostics.
Geimer SA
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry for detection of the development of visual field defects in glaucoma suspect eyes: a prospective study.
Liu S; Yu M; Weinreb RN; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2014 Jan; 132(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 24177945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Increased detection rate of glaucomatous visual field damage with locally condensed grids: a comparison between fundus-oriented perimetry and conventional visual field examination.
Schiefer U; Flad M; Stumpp F; Malsam A; Paetzold J; Vonthein R; Denk PO; Sample PA
Arch Ophthalmol; 2003 Apr; 121(4):458-65. PubMed ID: 12695242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Perimetry in young and neurologically impaired children: the Behavioral Visual Field (BEFIE) Screening Test revisited.
Koenraads Y; Braun KP; van der Linden DC; Imhof SM; Porro GL
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 133(3):319-25. PubMed ID: 25541916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The ability of healthy volunteers to simulate a neurologic field defect on automated perimetry.
Ghate D; Bodnarchuk B; Sanders S; Deokule S; Kedar S
Ophthalmology; 2014 Mar; 121(3):759-62. PubMed ID: 24314835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a pointwise linear regression analysis.
Liu S; Yu M; Weinreb RN; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 May; 55(5):2862-9. PubMed ID: 24595388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
