157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15812761)
1. Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect.
Yenice O; Temel A
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(2):209-12. PubMed ID: 15812761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer.
Hirasawa K; Shoji N
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors.
Singh MD; Jain K
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of threshold estimation and learning effect of two perimetric strategies, SITA Fast and CLIP, in damaged visual fields.
Capris P; Autuori S; Capris E; Papadia M
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 18320509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry.
Patel A; Wollstein G; Ishikawa H; Schuman JS
Ophthalmology; 2007 Mar; 114(3):480-7. PubMed ID: 17123623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparing the full-threshold and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithms for short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Ng M; Racette L; Pascual JP; Liebmann JM; Girkin CA; Lovell SL; Zangwill LM; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Apr; 50(4):1726-33. PubMed ID: 19074800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Full-threshold versus Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time.
Schimiti RB; Avelino RR; Kara-José N; Costa VP
Ophthalmology; 2002 Nov; 109(11):2084-92; discussion 2092. PubMed ID: 12414419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1999 Apr; 77(2):125-9. PubMed ID: 10321523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.
Bourne RR; Jahanbakhsh K; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Hoffmann EM; Medeiros FA; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Dec; 144(6):908-913. PubMed ID: 17919445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of the Humphrey swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies.
Sharma AK; Goldberg I; Graham SL; Mohsin M
J Glaucoma; 2000 Feb; 9(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10708227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma].
Nordmann JP; Brion F; Hamard P; Mouton-Chopin D
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Oct; 21(8):549-54. PubMed ID: 9833219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Ophthalmology; 2002 Jun; 109(6):1052-8. PubMed ID: 12045043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A comparison of false-negative responses for full threshold and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal observers.
Johnson CA; Sherman K; Doyle C; Wall M
J Glaucoma; 2014; 23(5):288-92. PubMed ID: 23632399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. SITA visual field testing in children.
Donahue SP; Porter A
J AAPOS; 2001 Apr; 5(2):114-7. PubMed ID: 11304820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in a Turkish population.
Aydin A; Kocak I; Aykan U; Can G; Sabahyildizi M; Ersanli D
J Fr Ophtalmol; 2015 Sep; 38(7):628-32. PubMed ID: 26111771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma.
Liu S; Lam S; Weinreb RN; Ye C; Cheung CY; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7325-31. PubMed ID: 21810975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
