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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14691193)

  • 21. Lower threshold estimates at the onset of automated perimetry causing artefacts in perimetrically naive subjects.
    Preetha MM; George R; Ve RS; Raju P; Vijaya L
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2008 Sep; 28(5):492-6. PubMed ID: 18761486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Smaller Fixation Target Size Is Associated with More Stable Fixation and Less Variance in Threshold Sensitivity.
    Hirasawa K; Okano K; Koshiji R; Funaki W; Shoji N
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(11):e0165046. PubMed ID: 27829030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mechanisms mediating visual detection in static perimetry.
    Harwerth RS; Smith EL; DeSantis L
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Sep; 34(10):3011-23. PubMed ID: 8360032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A new pattern electroretinogram paradigm evaluated in terms of user friendliness and agreement with perimetry.
    Yang A; Swanson WH
    Ophthalmology; 2007 Apr; 114(4):671-9. PubMed ID: 17398319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Age-dependent normative values for differential luminance sensitivity in automated static perimetry using the Octopus 101.
    Hermann A; Paetzold J; Vonthein R; Krapp E; Rauscher S; Schiefer U
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Jun; 86(4):446-55. PubMed ID: 18070224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of the OKP visual field screening test with the Humphrey field analyser.
    Vernon SA; Quigley HA
    Eye (Lond); 1992; 6 ( Pt 5)():521-4. PubMed ID: 1286719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Flicker-defined form perimetry in glaucoma patients.
    Horn FK; Kremers J; Mardin CY; Jünemann AG; Adler W; Tornow RP
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 253(3):447-55. PubMed ID: 25511293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy.
    Rohrschneider K; Fendrich T; Becker M; Krastel H; Kruse FE; Völcker HE
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1995 Dec; 233(12):743-9. PubMed ID: 8626081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Association between scanning laser polarimetry measurements using variable corneal polarization compensation and visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes.
    Bowd C; Zangwill LM; Weinreb RN
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2003 Jul; 121(7):961-6. PubMed ID: 12860798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Equating spatial summation in visual field testing reveals greater loss in optic nerve disease.
    Kalloniatis M; Khuu SK
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2016 Jul; 36(4):439-52. PubMed ID: 27197562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry.
    Kutzko KE; Brito CF; Wall M
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jun; 41(7):2006-13. PubMed ID: 10845628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Comparative resilience of clinical perimetric tests to induced levels of intraocular straylight.
    Oleszczuk JD; Bergin C; Sharkawi E
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Mar; 53(3):1219-24. PubMed ID: 22266518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Automatic static threshold perimetry is useful for estimating the effects of laser photocoagulation on diabetic maculopathy.
    Okuyama M; Okisaka S
    Ophthalmic Res; 1998; 30(4):207-15. PubMed ID: 9667051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry.
    Wall M; Neahring RK; Woodward KR
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Apr; 43(4):1277-83. PubMed ID: 11923276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Flicker defined form perimetry in glaucoma suspects with normal achromatic visual fields.
    Reznicek L; Lamparter J; Vogel M; Kampik A; Hirneiß C
    Curr Eye Res; 2015 Jul; 40(7):683-9. PubMed ID: 25207744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.