844 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18669543)
21. [Frequency doubling perimetry in terminal visual field defects].
Muñoz-Negrete FJ; Rebolleda G; González Martín-Moro J; Cerio-Ramsden CD
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2003 Apr; 78(4):203-9. PubMed ID: 12743844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Frequency doubling perimetry and the detection of eye disease in the community.
Cioffi GA; Mansberger S; Spry P; Johnson C; Van Buskirk EM
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2000; 98():195-9; discussion 199-202. PubMed ID: 11190023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Glaucoma detection with frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength perimetry.
Horn FK; Brenning A; Jünemann AG; Lausen B
J Glaucoma; 2007; 16(4):363-71. PubMed ID: 17570999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucoma patients with asymmetric hemifield visual field loss.
Badlani V; Shahidi M; Shakoor A; Edward DP; Zelkha R; Wilensky J
J Glaucoma; 2006 Aug; 15(4):275-80. PubMed ID: 16865002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Prospective randomized comparative study of frequency doubling perimetry vs standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma].
Kampmeier J; Eisert B; Buchwald HJ; Lang GK; Lang GE
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2001 Mar; 218(3):157-67. PubMed ID: 11322052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Evaluation of the high specificity Screening Program (C-20-1) of the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter in clinical practice.
North RV; Jones AL; Hunter E; Morgan JE; Wild JM
Eye (Lond); 2006 Jun; 20(6):681-7. PubMed ID: 15999135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Wild JM; Kim LS; Pacey IE; Cunliffe IA
Ophthalmology; 2006 Feb; 113(2):206-15. PubMed ID: 16458091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses.
Artes PH; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Dec; 46(12):4600-6. PubMed ID: 16303955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli.
Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):426-35. PubMed ID: 9040476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma].
Nordmann JP; Brion F; Hamard P; Mouton-Chopin D
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Oct; 21(8):549-54. PubMed ID: 9833219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
Spry PG; Johnson CA; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 May; 42(6):1404-10. PubMed ID: 11328758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Different strategies for Humphrey automated perimetry: FASTPAC, SITA standard and SITA fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
Roggen X; Herman K; Van Malderen L; Devos M; Spileers W
Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2001; (279):23-33. PubMed ID: 11344712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Sensitivity and specificity of the Humphrey Matrix to detect homonymous hemianopias.
Taravati P; Woodward KR; Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Redline D; Carolan J; Huang CQ; Wall M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):924-8. PubMed ID: 18326713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Optic disc tomography and perimetry in controls, glaucoma suspects, and early and established glaucomas.
de la Rosa MG; Gonzalez-Hernandez M; Lozano-Lopez V; Mendez MS; de la Vega RR
Optom Vis Sci; 2007 Jan; 84(1):33-41. PubMed ID: 17220776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of visual evoked potentials, automated perimetry and frequency-doubling perimetry in early detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Sarić D; Mandić Z; Iveković R; Geber MZ; Benić G; Tomić Z; Grgić D
Coll Antropol; 2005; 29 Suppl 1():111-3. PubMed ID: 16193690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
