These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16692411)
21. [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]
22. Diagnosis and long term follow up of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry. LeBlanc RP Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 1992; 244():105-27. PubMed ID: 1297506 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Kinetic and static fixation methods in automated threshold perimetry. Asman P; Fingeret M; Robin A; Wild J; Pacey I; Greenfield D; Liebmann J; Ritch R J Glaucoma; 1999 Oct; 8(5):290-6. PubMed ID: 10529927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Using motion perimetry to detect visual field defects in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry. Wall M; Montgomery EB Neurology; 1995 Jun; 45(6):1169-75. PubMed ID: 7783884 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Automated perimetry. II. Devices manufactured in the United States and abroad. Keltner JL; Johnson CA Ann Ophthalmol; 1981 Apr; 13(4):395-7. PubMed ID: 7247185 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. [Quantitative perimetry with 2 variables. 1. Generalities]. Galan F; Israel AH Arch Oftalmol B Aires; 1967 Dec; 42(12):384-9. PubMed ID: 5620676 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. [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]
28. Quantitative perimetry. Visual field assessment. Pilchard WA J Kans Med Soc; 1973 Mar; 74(3):115-8. PubMed ID: 4690621 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparison of reliability indices in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry. Chauhan BC; Mohandas RN; Whelan JH; McCormick TA Ophthalmology; 1993 Jul; 100(7):1089-94. PubMed ID: 8321533 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Possibility of graphic analysis of the results of quantitative perimetry]. Marinchev VN Vestn Oftalmol; 1970; 6():65-70. PubMed ID: 5510859 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry. Bevers C; Blanckaert G; Van Keer K; Fils JF; Vandewalle E; Stalmans I Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 97(4):e499-e505. PubMed ID: 30345638 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]