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: 15013863)

  • 1. Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.
    Topouzis F; Coleman AL; Yu F; Mavroudis L; Anastasopoulos E; Koskosas A; Pappas T; Dimitrakos S; Wilson MR
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 15013863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The efficacy of the dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing.
    Huang AS; Smith SD; Quigley HA
    J Glaucoma; 1998 Jun; 7(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 9627854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Automated suprathreshold screening for glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey.
    Katz J; Tielsch JM; Quigley HA; Javitt J; Witt K; Sommer A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Nov; 34(12):3271-7. PubMed ID: 8225862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
    Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
    Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs.
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Ophthalmology; 2006 Jul; 113(7):1092-7. PubMed ID: 16815399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population.
    Akar Y; Yilmaz A; Yucel I
    Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(5):329-33. PubMed ID: 18617757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Samuels SJ
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):413-25. PubMed ID: 9040475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
    Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jul; 41(8):2201-4. PubMed ID: 10892863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Diffuse field loss and central visual function in glaucoma.
    Lachenmayr BJ; Drance SM
    Ger J Ophthalmol; 1992; 1(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 1477628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of methods used to determine the progression of visual field defects in glaucoma.
    Mayama C; Araie M; Suzuki Y; Ishida K; Yamamoto T; Kitazawa Y; Shirakashi M; Abe H; Tsukamoto H; Mishima HK; Yoshimura K; Ohashi Y
    Ophthalmology; 2004 Nov; 111(11):2117-25. PubMed ID: 15522380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Converting to SITA-standard from full-threshold visual field testing in the follow-up phase of a clinical trial.
    Musch DC; Gillespie BW; Motyka BM; Niziol LM; Mills RP; Lichter PR
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Aug; 46(8):2755-9. PubMed ID: 16043847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Validation of test duration as a screening criterion for frequency doubling perimetry.
    Thomas R; Parikh R; Muliyil J; Bhat S; George R
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):562-3. PubMed ID: 15013885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in open-angle glaucoma eyes with hemifield visual field damage: comparison of high-tension and normal-tension groups.
    Murata H; Tomidokoro A; Matsuo H; Tomita G; Araie M
    J Glaucoma; 2007 Jan; 16(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 17224743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [A study of Humphrey three zone screening to detect visual field of the patients with pituitary macroadenomas].
    Fang Q; Huang Q; Chen Z
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2001 Sep; 37(5):370-2. PubMed ID: 11770408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The usefulness of the Noise-Field Test as a screening method for visual field defects.
    Adachi M; Shirato S
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1994; 38(4):392-9. PubMed ID: 7723208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population.
    Rowe FJ; Sueke H; Gawley SD
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Jun; 94(6):757-62. PubMed ID: 20447958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.