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 *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1471493)

  • 1. Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field.
    McMillan TA; Stewart WC; Hunt HH
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Oct; 70(5):665-70. PubMed ID: 1471493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Nelson-Quigg JM
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Feb; 100(2):269-74. PubMed ID: 8437837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Is visual field evaluation using multiple correlations and linear regressions useful? An evaluation of Delphi perimetry.
    Wishart PK; Wardrop DR; Kosmin AS
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1998 Jul; 236(7):493-500. PubMed ID: 9672794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Baseline visual field characteristics in the ocular hypertension treatment study.
    Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Cello KE; Edwards M; Kass MA; Gordon MO; Budenz DL; Gaasterland DE; Werner E;
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Mar; 109(3):432-7. PubMed ID: 11874743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect using a screening program of Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Hong C; Song KY; Youn DH; Park WH
    Korean J Ophthalmol; 1990 Jun; 4(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 2214247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.
    Birt CM; Shin DH; Samudrala V; Hughes BA; Kim C; Lee D
    Ophthalmology; 1997 Jul; 104(7):1126-30. PubMed ID: 9224465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of five methods for estimating general glaucomatous visual field depression.
    Funkhouser A; Flammer J; Fankhauser F; Hirsbrunner HP
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1992; 230(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 1577286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma.
    Bengtsson B
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2000 Oct; 78(5):519-22. PubMed ID: 11037906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A multicenter comparison study of the Humphrey Field Analyzer I and the Humphrey Field Analyzer II.
    Johnson CA; Cioffi GA; Drance SM; Gaasterland D; Mills RP; Ashburn F; Hnik P; Van Coevorden RE
    Ophthalmology; 1997 Nov; 104(11):1910-7. PubMed ID: 9373125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Short-wavelength automated perimetry in low-, medium-, and high-risk ocular hypertensive eyes. Initial baseline results.
    Johnson CA; Brandt JD; Khong AM; Adams AJ
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1995 Jan; 113(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 7826296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability.
    Ophthalmology; 1994 Aug; 101(8):1445-55. PubMed ID: 7741836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Static versus kinetic testing in the nasal peripheral field in patients with glaucoma.
    Stewart WC
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Feb; 70(1):79-84. PubMed ID: 1557979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.
    Nelson-Quigg JM; Twelker JD; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Nov; 107(11):1612-5. PubMed ID: 2818281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Glaucomatous damage patterns by short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in glaucoma suspects.
    Polo V; Larrosa JM; Pinilla I; Gonzalvo F; Ferreras A; Honrubia FM
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2002; 12(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 11936444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Temporal visual field in glaucoma: a re-evaluation in the automated perimetry era.
    Pennebaker GE; Stewart WC
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1992; 230(2):111-4. PubMed ID: 1577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Johnson CA; Adams AJ; Casson EJ; Brandt JD
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1993 May; 111(5):645-50. PubMed ID: 8489447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluating the accuracy of the visual field index for the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma.
    Talbot R; Goldberg I; Kelly P
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 156(6):1272-6. PubMed ID: 24075425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group.
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Quigg JM; Cello KE; Kass MA; Gordon MO
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Sep; 118(9):1187-94. PubMed ID: 10980763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.