131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1814984)
21. Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.
Topouzis F; Coleman AL; Yu F; Mavroudis L; Anastasopoulos E; Koskosas A; Pappas T; Dimitrakos S; Wilson MR
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 15013863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Ophthalmology; 2006 Jul; 113(7):1092-7. PubMed ID: 16815399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Tilted disc syndrome may mimic false visual field deterioration.
Vuori ML; Mäntyjärvi M
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Sep; 86(6):622-5. PubMed ID: 18162059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Feasibility and outcome of automated static perimetry in children using continuous light increment perimetry (CLIP) and fast threshold strategy.
Wabbels BK; Wilscher S
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Dec; 83(6):664-9. PubMed ID: 16396642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Correlation between glaucomatous hemifield scotomas in white-on-white perimetry and blue-on-yellow perimetry using the oculus twinfield perimeter].
Denk PO; Markovic M; Knorr M
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2004 Feb; 221(2):109-15. PubMed ID: 14986209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [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]
29. 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]
30. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Reproducibility of central visual field testing using kinetic or computerized static perimetry (author's transl)].
Gramer E; Pröll M; Krieglstein GK
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1980 Mar; 176(3):374-84. PubMed ID: 7420997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.
Johnson LN; Baloh FG
J Natl Med Assoc; 1991 Oct; 83(10):895-8. PubMed ID: 1800764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Free static threshold perimetry with the Goldmann perimeter].
Fischer FW
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1985 Apr; 186(4):310-4. PubMed ID: 3999619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of automated and manual perimetry in patients with blepharoptosis.
Alniemi ST; Pang NK; Woog JJ; Bradley EA
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2013; 29(5):361-3. PubMed ID: 23924985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Automated static perimetry in the child: methodologic and practical problems].
Tschopp C; Safran AB; Laffi JL; Mermoud C; Bullinger A; Viviani P
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1995 May; 206(5):416-9. PubMed ID: 7609403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [15 years automated perimetry--where does the path lead?].
Lachenmayr B; Lund OE
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1994 Dec; 205(6):325-8. PubMed ID: 7869681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.
Wilscher S; Wabbels B; Lorenz B
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 248(10):1493-500. PubMed ID: 20232076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.
Shahinfar S; Johnson LN; Madsen RW
Ophthalmology; 1995 Jun; 102(6):872-7. PubMed ID: 7777293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
