131 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]
