264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11831919)
1. Spatial and temporal processing of threshold data for detection of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss.
Spry PG; Johnson CA; Bates AB; Turpin A; Chauhan BC
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Feb; 120(2):173-80. PubMed ID: 11831919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The Effective Dynamic Ranges for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression With Standard Automated Perimetry and Stimulus Sizes III and V.
Wall M; Zamba GKD; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2018 Jan; 59(1):439-445. PubMed ID: 29356822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pointwise linear regression analysis for detection of visual field progression with absolute versus corrected threshold sensitivities.
Manassakorn A; Nouri-Mahdavi K; Koucheki B; Law SK; Caprioli J
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Jul; 47(7):2896-903. PubMed ID: 16799031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sensitivity differences between real-patient and computer-stimulated visual fields.
Vesti E; Spry PG; Chauhan BC; Johnson CA
J Glaucoma; 2002 Feb; 11(1):35-45. PubMed ID: 11821688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Monitoring glaucomatous visual field progression: the effect of a novel spatial filter.
Strouthidis NG; Scott A; Viswanathan AC; Crabb DP; Garway-Heath DF
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Jan; 48(1):251-7. PubMed ID: 17197540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data.
Spry PG; Bates AB; Johnson CA; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jul; 41(8):2192-200. PubMed ID: 10892862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Early Detection of Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression Using Pointwise Linear Regression With Binomial Test in the Central 10 Degrees.
Asano S; Murata H; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Asaoka R
Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Mar; 199():140-149. PubMed ID: 30465746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Improving the prediction of visual field progression in glaucoma using spatial processing.
Crabb DP; Fitzke FW; McNaught AI; Edgar DF; Hitchings RA
Ophthalmology; 1997 Mar; 104(3):517-24. PubMed ID: 9082283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression.
Gardiner SK; Crabb DP
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 May; 43(5):1400-7. PubMed ID: 11980853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Refinement of pointwise linear regression criteria for determining glaucoma progression.
Kummet CM; Zamba KD; Doyle CK; Johnson CA; Wall M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Sep; 54(9):6234-41. PubMed ID: 23908183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pointwise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison with the advanced glaucoma intervention study methods.
Nouri-Mahdavi K; Caprioli J; Coleman AL; Hoffman D; Gaasterland D
Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 Feb; 123(2):193-9. PubMed ID: 15710815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Defining 10-2 visual field progression criteria: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using pointwise linear regression.
de Moraes CG; Song C; Liebmann JM; Simonson JL; Furlanetto RL; Ritch R
Ophthalmology; 2014 Mar; 121(3):741-9. PubMed ID: 24290806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validating the efficacy of the binomial pointwise linear regression method to detect glaucoma progression with multicentral database.
Asano S; Murata H; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Miki A; Tanito M; Mizoue S; Mori K; Suzuki K; Yamashita T; Kashiwagi K; Shoji N; Zangwill LM; Asaoka R
Br J Ophthalmol; 2020 Apr; 104(4):569-574. PubMed ID: 31272952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression?
Turpin A; McKendrick AM
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 May; 52(6):3237-45. PubMed ID: 21357405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of focal lamina cribrosa defect on glaucomatous visual field progression.
Faridi OS; Park SC; Kabadi R; Su D; De Moraes CG; Liebmann JM; Ritch R
Ophthalmology; 2014 Aug; 121(8):1524-30. PubMed ID: 24697910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: a comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation.
Artes PH; Henson DB; Harper R; McLeod D
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Jun; 44(6):2582-7. PubMed ID: 12766060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients with Progressive Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thinning: A 5-Year Prospective Study.
Yu M; Lin C; Weinreb RN; Lai G; Chiu V; Leung CK
Ophthalmology; 2016 Jun; 123(6):1201-10. PubMed ID: 27001534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Optic disc progression and rates of visual field change in treated glaucoma.
De Moraes CG; Liebmann JM; Park SC; Teng CC; Nemiroff J; Tello C; Ritch R
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Mar; 91(2):e86-91. PubMed ID: 23356423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
