230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15630403)
1. Combining perimetric suprathreshold and threshold procedures to reduce measurement variability in areas of visual field loss.
McKendrick AM; Turpin A
Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Jan; 82(1):43-51. PubMed ID: 15630403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test-retest variability in glaucoma.
Turpin A; Jankovic D; McKendrick AM
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Apr; 48(4):1627-34. PubMed ID: 17389493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Advantages of terminating Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST) with dynamic criteria for white-on-white perimetry.
McKendrick AM; Turpin A
Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Nov; 82(11):981-7. PubMed ID: 16317375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing.
Wall M; Punke SG; Stickney TL; Brito CF; Withrow KR; Kardon RH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Feb; 42(2):528-37. PubMed ID: 11157893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation.
Turpin A; McKendrick AM; Johnson CA; Vingrys AJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Feb; 43(2):322-31. PubMed ID: 11818373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.
Artes PH; Iwase A; Ohno Y; Kitazawa Y; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Aug; 43(8):2654-9. PubMed ID: 12147599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation.
Turpin A; McKendrick AM; Johnson CA; Vingrys AJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):4787-95. PubMed ID: 14578400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. A perimetric test procedure that uses structural information.
Ganeshrao SB; McKendrick AM; Denniss J; Turpin A
Optom Vis Sci; 2015 Jan; 92(1):70-82. PubMed ID: 25415282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry.
Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Feb; 50(2):974-9. PubMed ID: 18952921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry.
Johnson CA; Chauhan BC; Shapiro LR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1992 Sep; 33(10):2966-74. PubMed ID: 1526745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Relationship of SITA and full-threshold standard perimetry to frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma.
Boden C; Pascual J; Medeiros FA; Aihara M; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2433-9. PubMed ID: 15980232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects.
Chong LX; McKendrick AM; Ganeshrao SB; Turpin A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Apr; 55(5):3265-74. PubMed ID: 24781947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Glass E; Schaumberger M; Lachenmayr BJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Aug; 36(9):1847-54. PubMed ID: 7635658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study.
Haymes SA; Hutchison DM; McCormick TA; Varma DK; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Feb; 46(2):547-54. PubMed ID: 15671281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of catch trial methods used in standard automated perimetry in glaucoma patients.
Wall M; Doyle CK; Brito CF; Woodward KR; Johnson CA
J Glaucoma; 2008 Dec; 17(8):626-30. PubMed ID: 19092457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
