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 *

45 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1583271)

  • 1. Rotary Diamond Chart--a new visual field screening device.
    Freed DM; Semes LP; Potter JW
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1992 Feb; 63(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 1583271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Component perimetry: a fast method to detect visual field defects caused by brain lesions.
    Bachmann G; Fahle M
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Sep; 41(10):2870-86. PubMed ID: 10967040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The illuminated high contrast macular grid: a pilot study.
    Achiron LR; Witkin NS; McCarey B; Primo S
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):693-7. PubMed ID: 8576534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reading performance in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a study using the MNREAD charts.
    Virgili G; Pierrottet C; Parmeggiani F; Pennino M; Giacomelli G; Steindler P; Menchini U; Orzalesi N;
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Oct; 45(10):3418-24. PubMed ID: 15452044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Subjective detection of visual field defects using home TV set.
    Shirato S; Adachi M; Hara T
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1991; 35(3):273-81. PubMed ID: 1770667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Symptomatic and asymptomatic visual loss in patients taking vigabatrin.
    Daneshvar H; Racette L; Coupland SG; Kertes PJ; Guberman A; Zackon D
    Ophthalmology; 1999 Sep; 106(9):1792-8. PubMed ID: 10485552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Longitudinal cohort study of patients with birdshot chorioretinopathy. IV. Visual field results at baseline.
    Gordon LK; Monnet D; Holland GN; Brézin AP; Yu F; Levinson RD
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Dec; 144(6):829-837. PubMed ID: 17937923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Progression of visual field defects in leber hereditary optic neuropathy: experience of the LHON treatment trial.
    Newman NJ; Biousse V; Newman SA; Bhatti MT; Hamilton SR; Farris BK; Lesser RL; Turbin RE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Jun; 141(6):1061-1067. PubMed ID: 16765674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
    Bass SJ; Feldman J
    Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of an automated confrontation testing device versus finger counting in the detection of field loss.
    Bass SJ; Cooper J; Feldman J; Horn D
    Optometry; 2007 Aug; 78(8):390-5. PubMed ID: 17662927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation.
    Zhang L; Drance SM; Douglas GR
    J Glaucoma; 1997 Aug; 6(4):259-62. PubMed ID: 9264306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Vigabatrin and visual field defects. A Danish material with evaluation of different screening methods].
    Riise P; Fledelius HC; Rogvi-Hansen Bà
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Mar; 165(10):1034-8. PubMed ID: 12645411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma.
    Wilensky JT; Hawkins A
    Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2001; 99():213-7; discussion 217-8. PubMed ID: 11797309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.