203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17458786)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. [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]
4. 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]
5. [Rapid Tendency Oriented Perimeter (TOP) with the Octopus visual field analyzer].
Lachkar Y; Barrault O; Lefrançois A; Demailly P
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Mar; 21(3):180-4. PubMed ID: 9759403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss.
Nowomiejska K; Vonthein R; Paetzold J; Zagorski Z; Kardon R; Schiefer U
Ophthalmology; 2005 Aug; 112(8):1343-54. PubMed ID: 15996734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [The value of frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma screening of aged 40 or more population].
Li JJ; Xu L; Zhang RX; Sun XY; Yang H; Zou Y; Zhao JL
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2005 Mar; 41(3):221-5. PubMed ID: 15840362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Three-dimensional high-speed optical coherence tomography imaging of lamina cribrosa in glaucoma.
Inoue R; Hangai M; Kotera Y; Nakanishi H; Mori S; Morishita S; Yoshimura N
Ophthalmology; 2009 Feb; 116(2):214-22. PubMed ID: 19091413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The usefulness of the Noise-Field Test as a screening method for visual field defects.
Adachi M; Shirato S
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1994; 38(4):392-9. PubMed ID: 7723208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma].
Nowomiejska K; Paetzold J; Krapp E; Rejdak R; Zagórski Z; Schiefer U
Klin Oczna; 2004; 106(1-2 Suppl):231-3. PubMed ID: 15510509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Component perimetry: a fast method to detect visual field defects caused by brain lesions.
Bachmann G; Fahle M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Sep; 41(10):2870-86. PubMed ID: 10967040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [First experience with the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter® on patients with ocular hypertension and preperimetric glaucoma].
Hasler S; Stürmer J
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2012 Apr; 229(4):319-22. PubMed ID: 22495996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of diabetes on glaucoma screening using frequency-doubling perimetry.
Realini T; Lai MQ; Barber L
Ophthalmology; 2004 Nov; 111(11):2133-6. PubMed ID: 15522382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [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]
18. Glaucoma screening with oculokinetic perimetry in general practice: is its specificity acceptable?
Christoffersen T; Fors T; Waage S; Holtedahl K
Eye (Lond); 1995; 9 ( Pt 6 Su)():36-9. PubMed ID: 8729017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
