267 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17144515)
1. [FDT versus automated standard perimetry in healthy subjects].
Chiseliţa D; Ioana MC; Danielescu C; Mihaela NM
Oftalmologia; 2006; 50(3):99-104. PubMed ID: 17144515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giangiacomo A; Fontana H; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Feb; 143(2):263-271. PubMed ID: 17178091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma.
Liu S; Lam S; Weinreb RN; Ye C; Cheung CY; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7325-31. PubMed ID: 21810975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. [A comparative analysis of standard automated perimetry and short wavelength automated perimetry in early diagnosis of glaucoma].
Chiseliţă D; Crenguţa MI; Danielescu C; Mihaela NM
Oftalmologia; 2006; 50(2):94-102. PubMed ID: 16927766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Medeiros FA; Sample PA; Weinreb RN
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 May; 137(5):863-71. PubMed ID: 15126151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in open-angle glaucoma eyes with hemifield visual field damage: comparison of high-tension and normal-tension groups.
Murata H; Tomidokoro A; Matsuo H; Tomita G; Araie M
J Glaucoma; 2007 Jan; 16(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 17224743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Frequency doubling perimetry in terminal visual field defects].
Muñoz-Negrete FJ; Rebolleda G; González Martín-Moro J; Cerio-Ramsden CD
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2003 Apr; 78(4):203-9. PubMed ID: 12743844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual field defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma?
Ferreras A; Polo V; Larrosa JM; Pablo LE; Pajarin AB; Pueyo V; Honrubia FM
J Glaucoma; 2007; 16(4):372-83. PubMed ID: 17571000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
Spry PG; Johnson CA; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 May; 42(6):1404-10. PubMed ID: 11328758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry.
Wall M; Neahring RK; Woodward KR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Apr; 43(4):1277-83. PubMed ID: 11923276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Schimiti RB; de Vasconcellos JP; Costa VP
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Jun; 84(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 16704696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
