152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16091926)
1. [Static fundus perimetry in normals. Microperimeter 1 versus SLO].
Springer C; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmologe; 2006 Mar; 103(3):214-20. PubMed ID: 16091926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Microperimetry--comparison between the micro perimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope--fundus perimetry.
Rohrschneider K; Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE
Am J Ophthalmol; 2005 Jan; 139(1):125-34. PubMed ID: 15672526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Fixation stability: a comparison between the Nidek MP-1 and the Rodenstock scanning laser ophthalmoscope in persons with and without diabetic maculopathy.
Dunbar HM; Crossland MD; Rubin GS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2010 Aug; 51(8):4346-50. PubMed ID: 20335616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects.
Lima VC; Prata TS; De Moraes CG; Kim J; Seiple W; Rosen RB; Liebmann JM; Ritch R
Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Jan; 94(1):64-7. PubMed ID: 19692366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold.
Midena E; Radin PP; Convento E; Cavarzeran F
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2007; 17(1):63-8. PubMed ID: 17294384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. MP1 AND MAIA FUNDUS PERIMETRY IN HEALTHY SUBJECTS AND PATIENTS AFFECTED BY RETINAL DYSTROPHIES.
Parodi MB; Triolo G; Morales M; Borrelli E; Cicinelli MV; Cascavilla ML; Bandello F
Retina; 2015 Aug; 35(8):1662-9. PubMed ID: 26214316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Efficacy of SLO-Microperimetry and Humphrey for evaluating macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.
Kulkarni SV; Coupland SG; Stitt DM; Hamilton J; Brownstein JJ; Damji KF
Can J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 48(5):406-12. PubMed ID: 24093188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A microperimeter that provides fixation pattern and retinal sensitivity measurement.
Sawa M; Gomi F; Toyoda A; Ikuno Y; Fujikado T; Tano Y
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2006; 50(2):111-5. PubMed ID: 16604385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Microperimetry in patients with central serous retinopathy.
Toonen F; Remky A; Janssen V; Wolf S; Reim M
Ger J Ophthalmol; 1995 Sep; 4(5):311-4. PubMed ID: 7496344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry.
Varano M; Scassa C
Semin Ophthalmol; 1998 Dec; 13(4):203-9. PubMed ID: 9878671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Kinetic fundus controlled perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope].
Rohrschneider K; Becker M; Fendrich T; Völcker HE
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1995 Aug; 207(2):102-10. PubMed ID: 7474772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [First experience with the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter® on patients with ocular hypertension and preperimetric glaucoma].
Hasler S; Stürmer J
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2012 Apr; 229(4):319-22. PubMed ID: 22495996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [Follow-up on MEWDS by fundus perimetry and multifocal ERG with the SLO].
Bültmann S; Martin M; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmologe; 2002 Sep; 99(9):719-23. PubMed ID: 12219262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fundus-driven perimetry (microperimetry) compared to conventional static automated perimetry: similarities, differences, and clinical applications.
Acton JH; Greenstein VC
Can J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 48(5):358-63. PubMed ID: 24093180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reliability and Intersession Agreement of Microperimetric and Fixation Measurements Obtained with a New Microperimeter in Normal Eyes.
Molina-Martín A; Piñero DP; Pérez-Cambrodí RJ
Curr Eye Res; 2016; 41(3):400-9. PubMed ID: 25859613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Scanning eye movements in homonymous hemianopia documented by scanning laser ophthalmoscope retinal perimetry.
Jamara RJ; Van De Velde F; Peli E
Optom Vis Sci; 2003 Jul; 80(7):495-504. PubMed ID: 12858085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
