211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16396642)
1. Feasibility and outcome of automated static perimetry in children using continuous light increment perimetry (CLIP) and fast threshold strategy.
Wabbels BK; Wilscher S
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Dec; 83(6):664-9. PubMed ID: 16396642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population.
Akar Y; Yilmaz A; Yucel I
Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(5):329-33. PubMed ID: 18617757
[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. The reliability of frequency-doubling perimetry in young children.
Blumenthal EZ; Haddad A; Horani A; Anteby I
Ophthalmology; 2004 Mar; 111(3):435-9. PubMed ID: 15019315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.
Wilscher S; Wabbels B; Lorenz B
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 248(10):1493-500. PubMed ID: 20232076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [Automated static perimetry in the child: methodologic and practical problems].
Tschopp C; Safran AB; Laffi JL; Mermoud C; Bullinger A; Viviani P
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1995 May; 206(5):416-9. PubMed ID: 7609403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population.
Becker K; Semes L
Optometry; 2003 Mar; 74(3):173-9. PubMed ID: 12645850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal children.
Quinn LM; Gardiner SK; Wheeler DT; Newkirk M; Johnson CA
Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Dec; 142(6):983-9. PubMed ID: 17046702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of tendency-oriented perimetry and dynamic strategy in octopus perimetry as a screening tool in a clinical setting: a prospective study.
Scherrer M; Fleischhauer JC; Helbig H; Johann Auf der Heide K; Sutter FK
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2007 Apr; 224(4):252-4. PubMed ID: 17458786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Rarebit and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in children and young adults.
Martin L
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Dec; 83(6):670-7. PubMed ID: 16396643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children.
Morales J; Brown SM
Ophthalmology; 2001 Jan; 108(1):157-62. PubMed ID: 11150282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The different effects of aging on normal sensitivity in flicker and light-sense perimetry.
Lachenmayr BJ; Kojetinsky S; Ostermaier N; Angstwurm K; Vivell PM; Schaumberger M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1994 May; 35(6):2741-8. PubMed ID: 8188467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Combining perimetric suprathreshold and threshold procedures to reduce measurement variability in areas of visual field loss.
McKendrick AM; Turpin A
Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Jan; 82(1):43-51. PubMed ID: 15630403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A clinical comparison of visual field testing between Goldmann-type manual perimetry and the Marco MT-336 automated perimeter.
Jennings BJ; Drake SA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1991 Dec; 62(12):914-22. PubMed ID: 1814984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry.
Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Feb; 50(2):974-9. PubMed ID: 18952921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Computer perimetry--rapid TOP (tendency oriented perimetry) and normal threshold methods in clinical practice--comparison of results].
Kratochvilová P
Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2002 May; 58(3):187-93. PubMed ID: 12087665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
