457 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16458091)
21. Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual-field defects in open-angle glaucoma.
Clement CI; Goldberg I; Healey PR; Graham S
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 May; 93(5):582-8. PubMed ID: 18669543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2.
Huang CQ; Carolan J; Redline D; Taravati P; Woodward KR; Johnson CA; Wall M; Keltner JL
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):917-23. PubMed ID: 18326712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Schaumberger M; Schäfer B; Lachenmayr BJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jun; 36(7):1390-7. PubMed ID: 7775117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Test-retest variability for standard automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry in diabetic patients.
Bengtsson B; Hellgren KJ; Agardh E
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 86(2):170-6. PubMed ID: 17935606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study.
Haymes SA; Hutchison DM; McCormick TA; Varma DK; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Feb; 46(2):547-54. PubMed ID: 15671281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of standard automated perimetry with matrix frequency-doubling technology in patients with resolved optic neuritis.
Sakai T; Matsushima M; Shikishima K; Kitahara K
Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):949-56. PubMed ID: 17382395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Mild learning effect of short-wavelength automated perimetry using SITA program.
Fogagnolo P; Tanga L; Rossetti L; Oddone F; Manni G; Orzalesi N; Centofanti M
J Glaucoma; 2010; 19(5):319-23. PubMed ID: 19855293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Glaucoma detection with frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength perimetry.
Horn FK; Brenning A; Jünemann AG; Lausen B
J Glaucoma; 2007; 16(4):363-71. PubMed ID: 17570999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix.
Matsumoto C; Takada S; Okuyama S; Arimura E; Hashimoto S; Shimomura Y
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Apr; 84(2):210-5. PubMed ID: 16637839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Visual field changes after transient elevation of intraocular pressure in eyes with and without glaucoma.
Chan KC; Poostchi A; Wong T; Insull EA; Sachdev N; Wells AP
Ophthalmology; 2008 Apr; 115(4):667-72. PubMed ID: 17716733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of conventional and pattern discrimination perimetry in a prospective study of glaucoma patients.
Ansari I; Chauhan BC; McCormick TA; LeBlanc RP
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Dec; 41(13):4150-7. PubMed ID: 11095608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Visual field testing with the new Humphrey Matrix: a comparison between the FDT N-30 and Matrix N-30-F tests.
Brusini P; Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Tosoni C; Parisi L; Felletti M
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Jun; 84(3):351-6. PubMed ID: 16704697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice.
Demirel S; Johnson CA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1996 Aug; 67(8):451-6. PubMed ID: 8888875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Learning effect of humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension.
Centofanti M; Fogagnolo P; Oddone F; Orzalesi N; Vetrugno M; Manni G; Rossetti L
J Glaucoma; 2008 Sep; 17(6):436-41. PubMed ID: 18794676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Statistical modelling of the central 10-degree visual field in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Cubbidge RP; Hosking SL; Embleton S
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 240(8):650-7. PubMed ID: 12192459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
