These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14578433)

  • 1. Anatomy of a supergroup: does a criterion of normal perimetric performance generate a supernormal population?
    Anderson AJ; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):5043-8. PubMed ID: 14578433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Kang J; De Arrigunaga S; Freeman SE; Zhao Y; Lin M; Liebman DL; Roldan AM; Kim JA; Chang DS; Friedman DS; Elze T
    Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2023; 6(5):509-520. PubMed ID: 36918066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter.
    Anderson AJ; Johnson CA; Fingeret M; Keltner JL; Spry PG; Wall M; Werner JS
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Apr; 46(4):1540-8. PubMed ID: 15790927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters.
    Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham S
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jun; 87(6):690-4. PubMed ID: 12770962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects.
    Fogagnolo P; Modarelli A; Oddone F; Digiuni M; Montesano G; Orzalesi N; Rossetti L
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2016 Nov; 26(6):598-606. PubMed ID: 27375066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Perimetric Comparison Between the IMOvifa and Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Nishida T; Eslani M; Weinreb RN; Arias J; Vasile C; Mohammadzadeh V; Moghimi S
    J Glaucoma; 2023 Feb; 32(2):85-92. PubMed ID: 36223309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham S
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2007 Oct; 91(10):1285-7. PubMed ID: 17389740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser.
    Behera G; Waghmare SV; Ramasamy A
    Int Ophthalmol; 2023 Feb; 43(2):557-565. PubMed ID: 35947251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA.
    Fredette MJ; Giguère A; Anderson DR; Budenz DL; McSoley J
    Optom Vis Sci; 2015 May; 92(5):527-36. PubMed ID: 25875683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of Criterion Bias on Perimetric Sensitivity and Response Variability in Glaucoma.
    Rubinstein NJ; Turpin A; Denniss J; McKendrick AM
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2021 Jan; 10(1):18. PubMed ID: 33510957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyser and Humphrey Matrix Perimeter for the evaluation of glaucoma patients.
    Chen YH; Wu JN; Chen JT; Lu DW
    Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(6):400-7. PubMed ID: 18781091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.
    Kong YX; He M; Crowston JG; Vingrys AJ
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2016 Nov; 5(6):2. PubMed ID: 27847689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Raveendran S; James V; Dasari S; Palakurthy M; Reddy HB; Pradhan ZS; Rao DA; Puttaiah NK; Devi S
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Test-retest repeatability of the imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test in patients with glaucoma.
    Toyokuni H; Sakamoto M; Ueda K; Kurimoto T; Yamada-Nakanishi Y; Nakamura M
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2023 Sep; 67(5):578-589. PubMed ID: 37392238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of myopia on frequency-doubling perimetry.
    Ito A; Kawabata H; Fujimoto N; Adachi-Usami E
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Apr; 42(5):1107-10. PubMed ID: 11274092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Glaucoma diagnostics.
    Geimer SA
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.
    Kumar H; Thulasidas M
    J Ophthalmol; 2020; 2020():8384509. PubMed ID: 32908686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs.
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):5029-34. PubMed ID: 14578431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.