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: 1869056)

  • 1. The effects of weighting the "mean defect" visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field.
    Funkhouser A; Fankhauser F
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1991; 229(3):228-31. PubMed ID: 1869056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of unweighted and fluctuation-weighted indices (within the central 28 degrees of glaucomatous visual fields measured with the Octopus automated perimeter).
    Funkhouser AT; Fankhauser F
    Int Ophthalmol; 1991 Sep; 15(5):347-51. PubMed ID: 1743870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: correlation with octopus perimeter indices.
    Iester M; Mermoud A; Schnyder C
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Feb; 107(2):288-94. PubMed ID: 10690827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The use of the G1 and Octosmart programs in detecting temporal changes in the visual field.
    Fankhauser F; Gloor B; Iliev M; Kalman A
    Int Ophthalmol; 1997-1998; 21(6):311-7. PubMed ID: 9869338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of five methods for estimating general glaucomatous visual field depression.
    Funkhouser A; Flammer J; Fankhauser F; Hirsbrunner HP
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1992; 230(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 1577286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of the mean defect and mean deviation indices within the central 28 degrees of the glaucomatous visual field.
    Funkhouser AT; Fankhauser F
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1990; 34(4):414-20. PubMed ID: 2082062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detection of early visual field change in ocular hypertension using STATPAC.
    Park HJ; Kim DM; Youn DH; Hong C
    Korean J Ophthalmol; 1990 Jun; 4(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 2214246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The influence of stimulus parameters on the visual field indices by automated projection perimetry.
    Dengler-Harles M; Wild JM; Cole MD; O'Neill EC
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1993 Jun; 231(6):337-43. PubMed ID: 8339949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field.
    McMillan TA; Stewart WC; Hunt HH
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Oct; 70(5):665-70. PubMed ID: 1471493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Duration of automated suprathreshold vs quantitative threshold field examination. Impact of age and ocular status.
    Kosoko O; Sommer A; Auer C
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1986 Mar; 104(3):398-401. PubMed ID: 3954641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. High-pass resolution perimetry in eyes with ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma.
    Sample PA; Ahn DS; Lee PC; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1992 Mar; 113(3):309-16. PubMed ID: 1543225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Spatial analyses of glaucomatous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual field indices.
    Asman P; Heijl A; Olsson J; Rootzén H
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Oct; 70(5):679-86. PubMed ID: 1471495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham S
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2007 Oct; 91(10):1285-7. PubMed ID: 17389740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Short-wavelength automated perimetry in low-, medium-, and high-risk ocular hypertensive eyes. Initial baseline results.
    Johnson CA; Brandt JD; Khong AM; Adams AJ
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1995 Jan; 113(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 7826296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Threshold variation in automated perimetry.
    Stewart WC; Hunt HH
    Surv Ophthalmol; 1993; 37(5):353-61. PubMed ID: 8484168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Normal visual fields measured with Octopus-Program G1. II. Global visual field indices.
    Zulauf M; LeBlanc RP; Flammer J
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1994 Sep; 232(9):516-22. PubMed ID: 7959089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of the OKP visual field screening test with the Humphrey field analyser.
    Vernon SA; Quigley HA
    Eye (Lond); 1992; 6 ( Pt 5)():521-4. PubMed ID: 1286719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry.
    Wall M; Doyle CK; Zamba KD; Artes P; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Feb; 54(2):1345-51. PubMed ID: 23341012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Effective Dynamic Ranges for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression With Standard Automated Perimetry and Stimulus Sizes III and V.
    Wall M; Zamba GKD; Artes PH
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2018 Jan; 59(1):439-445. PubMed ID: 29356822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The visual field indices in primary open-angle glaucoma.
    Flanagan JG; Wild JM; Trope GE
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Jun; 34(7):2266-74. PubMed ID: 8505208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.