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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1814984)

  • 1. A clinical comparison of visual field testing between Goldmann-type manual perimetry and the Marco MT-336 automated perimeter.
    Jennings BJ; Drake SA
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1991 Dec; 62(12):914-22. PubMed ID: 1814984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Automated perimetry in a neuro-ophthalmologic practice.
    Schindler S; McCrary JA
    Ann Ophthalmol; 1981 Jun; 13(6):691-7. PubMed ID: 7258961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry.
    Agarwal HC; Gulati V; Sihota R
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Dec; 48(4):301-6. PubMed ID: 11340889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population.
    Akar Y; Yilmaz A; Yucel I
    Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(5):329-33. PubMed ID: 18617757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison of diagnostic performance and fixation control of two automated perimeters.
    Asman P; Fingeret M
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1997 Dec; 68(12):763-8. PubMed ID: 9635382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Vigabatrin and visual field defects. A Danish material with evaluation of different screening methods].
    Riise P; Fledelius HC; Rogvi-Hansen Bà
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Mar; 165(10):1034-8. PubMed ID: 12645411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.
    Murray IC; Fleck BW; Brash HM; Macrae ME; Tan LL; Minns RA
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Oct; 116(10):2017-26. PubMed ID: 19560207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Matched comparison of Goldmann perimetry and automated two-zone suprathreshold Dicon perimetry in open-angle glaucoma.
    Levy NS; Ellis E
    Ann Ophthalmol; 1985 Apr; 17(4):245-9. PubMed ID: 4004003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparison of manual Goldmann and automated static visual fields using the Dicon 2000 perimeter in the detection of chiasmal tumors.
    Wirtschafter JD; Coffman SM
    Ann Ophthalmol; 1984 Aug; 16(8):733-41. PubMed ID: 6497219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients.
    Horn FK; Wakili N; Jünemann AM; Korth M
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 240(8):658-65. PubMed ID: 12192460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
    Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Comparison of conventional and pattern discrimination perimetry in a prospective study of glaucoma patients.
    Ansari I; Chauhan BC; McCormick TA; LeBlanc RP
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Dec; 41(13):4150-7. PubMed ID: 11095608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of semiautomated versus manual Goldmann kinetic perimetry in patients with visually significant glaucoma.
    Ramirez AM; Chaya CJ; Gordon LK; Giaconi JA
    J Glaucoma; 2008 Mar; 17(2):111-7. PubMed ID: 18344756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The efficacy of the dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing.
    Huang AS; Smith SD; Quigley HA
    J Glaucoma; 1998 Jun; 7(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 9627854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Response time as a discriminator between true- and false-positive responses in suprathreshold perimetry.
    Artes PH; McLeod D; Henson DB
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Jan; 43(1):129-32. PubMed ID: 11773022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.