609 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15878065)
41. Statistical aspects of the normal visual field in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Wild JM; Cubbidge RP; Pacey IE; Robinson R
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1998 Jan; 39(1):54-63. PubMed ID: 9430545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [Relation between relative afferent pupillary defect and suprathreshold automated perimetry].
Wilhelm H; Meilinger S; Apfelstedt E
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1997 Jun; 210(6):365-9. PubMed ID: 9333662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy.
Rohrschneider K; Fendrich T; Becker M; Krastel H; Kruse FE; Völcker HE
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1995 Dec; 233(12):743-9. PubMed ID: 8626081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Number of stimuli as a reliability parameter in perimetry.
Zulauf M; Caprioli J; Boeglin RJ; Lee M
Ger J Ophthalmol; 1992; 1(2):86-90. PubMed ID: 1477631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. High-pass resolution perimetry and light-sense perimetry in open-angle glaucoma.
Meyer JH; Funk J
Ger J Ophthalmol; 1995 Jul; 4(4):222-7. PubMed ID: 7492934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Test-retest variability of microperimetry using the Nidek MP1 in patients with macular disease.
Chen FK; Patel PJ; Xing W; Bunce C; Egan C; Tufail AT; Coffey PJ; Rubin GS; Da Cruz L
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Jul; 50(7):3464-72. PubMed ID: 19324853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Pupillary dilation and its effects on automated perimetry results.
Kudrna GR; Stanley MA; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):675-80. PubMed ID: 8576532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. [Comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and achromatic standard automated perimetry in patients with migraine without aura and controls].
Göbel K; Boyraz M; Schröder A; Erb C
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2008 Aug; 225(8):718-22. PubMed ID: 18712657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Perimetric sensitivity and response variability in glaucoma with single-stimulus automated perimetry and multiple-stimulus perimetry with verbal feedback.
Miranda MA; Henson DB
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 86(2):202-6. PubMed ID: 18005269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; Hancock SA; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 May; 40(6):1152-61. PubMed ID: 10235548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. [Comparison of local differential luminance sensitivity (dls) between Oculus Twinfield Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer 630 (HFA I) in normal volunteers of varying ages].
Lorch L; Dietrich TJ; Schwabe R; Schiefer U
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2001 Dec; 218(12):782-94. PubMed ID: 11805870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. [Correlation between glaucomatous hemifield scotomas in white-on-white perimetry and blue-on-yellow perimetry using the oculus twinfield perimeter].
Denk PO; Markovic M; Knorr M
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2004 Feb; 221(2):109-15. PubMed ID: 14986209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Normal values for fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope.
Rohrschneider K; Becker M; Schumacher N; Fendrich T; Völcker HE
Am J Ophthalmol; 1998 Jul; 126(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 9683149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Quantifying adaptation and fatigue effects in frequency doubling perimetry.
Anderson AJ; McKendrick AM
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Feb; 48(2):943-8. PubMed ID: 17251498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Normal values for fundus perimetry with the microperimeter MP1.
Midena E; Vujosevic S; Cavarzeran F;
Ophthalmology; 2010 Aug; 117(8):1571-6, 1576.e1. PubMed ID: 20472294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. [Threshold-adjusted supraliminal pattern perimetry with the Goldmann perimeter].
Fischer FW
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1984 Sep; 185(3):204-11. PubMed ID: 6492677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. [Indications for stimulus 3 and 5 in automatic perimetry. Preliminary results].
Zulauf M; Caprioli J
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1994 May; 204(5):407-8. PubMed ID: 8051884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. [Rapid Tendency Oriented Perimeter (TOP) with the Octopus visual field analyzer].
Lachkar Y; Barrault O; Lefrançois A; Demailly P
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Mar; 21(3):180-4. PubMed ID: 9759403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. [Automated and semiautomated perimetry. Comparative trial of 3 devices (Baylor programmer, Friedmann Mark II campimeter, Octopus 2000 R.)].
Pradines F; Delbosc B; Royer J
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1985; 8(2):173-85. PubMed ID: 3891833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. [Variability of sensitivity thresholds in short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in the central vision field].
Polo Llorens V; Larrosa Poves JM; Pinilla Lozano I; Pablo Júlvez L; Rojo Aragües A; Cuevas Andrés R; Ruiz Moreno O; Honrubia López FM
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2000 Feb; 75(2):85-90. PubMed ID: 11151125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
