118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17438423)
1. The influence of learning effect on frequency doubling technology perimetry (Matrix).
Contestabile MT; Perdicchi A; Amodeo S; Recupero V; Recupero SM
J Glaucoma; 2007 May; 16(3):297-301. PubMed ID: 17438423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of cataract on the results of frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
Tanna AP; Abraham C; Lai J; Shen J
Ophthalmology; 2004 Aug; 111(8):1504-7. PubMed ID: 15288979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. [Comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and achromatic standard automated perimetry in patients with migraine without aura and controls].
Göbel K; Boyraz M; Schröder A; Erb C
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2008 Aug; 225(8):718-22. PubMed ID: 18712657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma].
Nordmann JP; Brion F; Hamard P; Mouton-Chopin D
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Oct; 21(8):549-54. PubMed ID: 9833219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test-retest variability, learning effect, normative range, influence of optical defocus, and cataract extraction.
Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Parisi L; Brusini P
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Nov; 48(11):5320-31. PubMed ID: 17962489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Converting to SITA-standard from full-threshold visual field testing in the follow-up phase of a clinical trial.
Musch DC; Gillespie BW; Motyka BM; Niziol LM; Mills RP; Lichter PR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Aug; 46(8):2755-9. PubMed ID: 16043847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Gomes PR; Pierre ET; Pierre LM
Eye (Lond); 2010 May; 24(5):851-6. PubMed ID: 19680272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix perimetry.
Hong S; Na K; Kim CY; Seong GJ
Can J Ophthalmol; 2007 Oct; 42(5):707-11. PubMed ID: 17823644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Learning effect among perimetric novices with screening C-20-1 frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Brush MB; Chen PP
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):551-2. PubMed ID: 15013879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of driver distraction and low alcohol concentrations on useful field of view and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
Puell MC; Barrio A
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Sep; 86(6):634-41. PubMed ID: 18081908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in patients with open-angle glaucoma.
De Tarso Pierre-Filho P; Gomes PR; Pierre ET; Pierre LM
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2010; 20(3):538-41. PubMed ID: 20099239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Effects of moderate smoking on the central visual field.
Akarsu C; Yazici B; Taner P; Ergin A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2004 Aug; 82(4):432-5. PubMed ID: 15291937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Long-term fluctuation of standard automatic perimetry, pulsar perimetry and frequency-doubling technology in early glaucoma diagnosis.
Gonzalez-Hernandez M; de la Rosa MG; de la Vega RR; Hernandez-Vidal A
Ophthalmic Res; 2007; 39(6):338-43. PubMed ID: 17952009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Learning curve and fatigue effect of flicker defined form perimetry.
Lamparter J; Schulze A; Schuff AC; Berres M; Pfeiffer N; Hoffmann EM
Am J Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 151(6):1057-1064.e1. PubMed ID: 21470593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
