524 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17956367)
1. Image quality characteristics of a novel colour scanning digital ophthalmoscope (SDO) compared with fundus photography.
Strauss RW; Krieglstein TR; Priglinger SG; Reis W; Ulbig MW; Kampik A; Neubauer AS
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2007 Nov; 27(6):611-8. PubMed ID: 17956367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. What is lost by digitizing stereoscopic fundus color slides for macular grading in age-related maculopathy and degeneration?
Scholl HP; Dandekar SS; Peto T; Bunce C; Xing W; Jenkins S; Bird AC
Ophthalmology; 2004 Jan; 111(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 14711724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital fundus image grading with the non-mydriatic Visucam(PRO NM) versus the FF450(plus) camera in diabetic retinopathy.
Neubauer AS; Rothschuh A; Ulbig MW; Blum M
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 86(2):177-82. PubMed ID: 17944975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Oral fluorescein angiography with the confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope.
Garcia CR; Rivero ME; Bartsch DU; Ishiko S; Takamiya A; Fukui K; Hirokawa H; Clark T; Yoshida A; Freeman WR
Ophthalmology; 1999 Jun; 106(6):1114-8. PubMed ID: 10366079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Joslin Vision Network Validation Study: pilot image stabilization phase.
Aiello LM; Bursell SE; Cavallerano J; Gardner WK; Strong J
J Am Optom Assoc; 1998 Nov; 69(11):699-710. PubMed ID: 9844322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Brightness, contrast, and color balance of digital versus film retinal images in the age-related eye disease study 2.
Hubbard LD; Danis RP; Neider MW; Thayer DW; Wabers HD; White JK; Pugliese AJ; Pugliese MF;
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Aug; 49(8):3269-82. PubMed ID: 18421079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Automated quality evaluation of digital fundus photographs.
Bartling H; Wanger P; Martin L
Acta Ophthalmol; 2009 Sep; 87(6):643-7. PubMed ID: 19719806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of a portable fundus camera for use in the teleophthalmologic diagnosis of glaucoma.
Yogesan K; Constable IJ; Barry CJ; Eikelboom RH; Morgan W; Tay-Kearney ML; Jitskaia L
J Glaucoma; 1999 Oct; 8(5):297-301. PubMed ID: 10529928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Web-based grading of compressed stereoscopic digital photography versus standard slide film photography for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy.
Rudnisky CJ; Tennant MT; Weis E; Ting A; Hinz BJ; Greve MD
Ophthalmology; 2007 Sep; 114(9):1748-54. PubMed ID: 17368543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of digital retinal image quality among photographers with different levels of training using a non-mydriatic fundus camera.
Maberley D; Morris A; Hay D; Chang A; Hall L; Mandava N
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2004 Jul; 11(3):191-7. PubMed ID: 15370551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [The St. Gallen digital ophthalmological imaging system].
Török B; Bischoff P
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2002 Apr; 219(4):306-10. PubMed ID: 12022025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of a digital retinal imaging system and seven-field stereo color fundus photography to detect diabetic retinopathy in the primary care environment.
Schiffman RM; Jacobsen G; Nussbaum JJ; Desai UR; Carey JD; Glasser D; Zimmer-Galler IE; Zeimer R; Goldberg MF
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging; 2005; 36(1):46-56. PubMed ID: 15688971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of colour micrographs obtained with a charged couple device (CCD) camera and a 35-mm camera.
Pedersen MM; Smedegaard J; Jensen PK; Heegaard S; Jensen OA; Prause JU
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Feb; 83(1):89-93. PubMed ID: 15715564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Automated assessment of diabetic retinal image quality based on clarity and field definition.
Fleming AD; Philip S; Goatman KA; Olson JA; Sharp PF
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Mar; 47(3):1120-5. PubMed ID: 16505050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can digitised colour 35 mm transparencies be used to diagnose diabetic retinopathy?
George LD; Leverton C; Young S; Lusty J; Dunstan FD; Owens DR
Diabet Med; 1997 Nov; 14(11):970-3. PubMed ID: 9400922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital fundus imaging: a quality and cost comparison with 35-mm film.
Prasad S; Bannon P; Clearkin LG; Phillips RP
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1999 Feb; 77(1):79-82. PubMed ID: 10071155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Constructing retinal fundus photomontages. A new computer-based method.
Mahurkar AA; Vivino MA; Trus BL; Kuehl EM; Datiles MB; Kaiser-Kupfer MI
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1996 Jul; 37(8):1675-83. PubMed ID: 8675411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of image compression and resolution on retinal vascular caliber.
Pauli TW; Gangaputra S; Hubbard LD; Thayer DW; Chandler CS; Peng Q; Narkar A; Ferrier NJ; Danis RP
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Aug; 53(9):5117-23. PubMed ID: 22736618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluating the eye's rotational stability during standard photography: effect on determining the axial orientation of toric intraocular lenses.
Viestenz A; Seitz B; Langenbucher A
J Cataract Refract Surg; 2005 Mar; 31(3):557-61. PubMed ID: 15811745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of autofluorescence imaging with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope and the fundus camera in age-related geographic atrophy.
Schmitz-Valckenberg S; Fleckenstein M; Göbel AP; Sehmi K; Fitzke FW; Holz FG; Tufail A
Am J Ophthalmol; 2008 Aug; 146(2):183-92. PubMed ID: 18514607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
