159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16043847)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Different strategies for Humphrey automated perimetry: FASTPAC, SITA standard and SITA fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
Roggen X; Herman K; Van Malderen L; Devos M; Spileers W
Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2001; (279):23-33. PubMed ID: 11344712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
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 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]
12. Relationship between Humphrey 30-2 SITA Standard Test, Matrix 30-2 threshold test, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients.
Bozkurt B; Yilmaz PT; Irkec M
J Glaucoma; 2008; 17(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 18414106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. 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]
15. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; O'Neill EC; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Aug; 40(9):1998-2009. PubMed ID: 10440254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients.
King AJ; Taguri A; Wadood AC; Azuara-Blanco A
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Jun; 240(6):481-7. PubMed ID: 12107516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast for following visual fields in prepubertal idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Stiebel-Kalish H; Lusky M; Yassur Y; Kalish Y; Shuper A; Erlich R; Lubman S; Snir M
Ophthalmology; 2004 Sep; 111(9):1673-5. PubMed ID: 15350321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual field fluctuations.
Kim J; Dally LG; Ederer F; Gaasterland DE; VanVeldhuisen PC; Blackwell B; Sullivan EK; Prum B; Shafranov G; Beck A; Spaeth GL;
Ophthalmology; 2004 Nov; 111(11):2109-16. PubMed ID: 15522379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative study of retinal nerve fiber layer measurement by StratusOCT and GDx VCC, II: structure/function regression analysis in glaucoma.
Leung CK; Chong KK; Chan WM; Yiu CK; Tso MY; Woo J; Tsang MK; Tse KK; Yung WH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Oct; 46(10):3702-11. PubMed ID: 16186352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
