187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15013885)
1. 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]
2. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giangiacomo A; Fontana H; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Feb; 143(2):263-271. PubMed ID: 17178091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Repeatability of frequency doubling technology perimetry (20-1 screening program) and the effect of pupillary dilatation on interpretation.
Parikh R; Muliyil J; George R; Bhat S; Thomas R
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2008; 15(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 18300088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Impact of diabetes on glaucoma screening using frequency-doubling perimetry.
Realini T; Lai MQ; Barber L
Ophthalmology; 2004 Nov; 111(11):2133-6. PubMed ID: 15522382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Frequency-doubling technology: searching for the optimum diagnostic criteria for glaucoma.
Ferreras A; Larrosa JM; Polo V; Pajarín AB; Mayoral F; Honrubia FM
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2007 Feb; 85(1):73-9. PubMed ID: 17244214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giaconi JA; Manassakorn A; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):931-7. PubMed ID: 17397926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Schimiti RB; de Vasconcellos JP; Costa VP
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Jun; 84(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 16704696
[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. Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual field defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma?
Ferreras A; Polo V; Larrosa JM; Pablo LE; Pajarin AB; Pueyo V; Honrubia FM
J Glaucoma; 2007; 16(4):372-83. PubMed ID: 17571000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Medeiros FA; Sample PA; Weinreb RN
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 May; 137(5):863-71. PubMed ID: 15126151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. [FDT versus automated standard perimetry in healthy subjects].
Chiseliţa D; Ioana MC; Danielescu C; Mihaela NM
Oftalmologia; 2006; 50(3):99-104. PubMed ID: 17144515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry.
Katz J; Quigley HA; Sommer A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jul; 36(8):1658-64. PubMed ID: 7601645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes.
Turpin A; McKendrick AM; Johnson CA; Vingrys AJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Mar; 43(3):709-15. PubMed ID: 11867588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of standard automated perimetry with matrix frequency-doubling technology in patients with resolved optic neuritis.
Sakai T; Matsushima M; Shikishima K; Kitahara K
Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):949-56. PubMed ID: 17382395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
