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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1937076)

  • 1. Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects.
    Cascairo MA; Stewart WC; Sutherland SE
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1991; 229(5):437-41. PubMed ID: 1937076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Factors that influence the prevalence of positive catch trials in glaucoma patients.
    Reynolds M; Stewart WC; Sutherland S
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1990; 228(4):338-41. PubMed ID: 2401419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Aminlari A; Sassani JW
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Jan; 100(1):76-84. PubMed ID: 8433832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects.
    Fankhauser F
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1993; 231(1):58-9. PubMed ID: 8428684
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.
    Nelson-Quigg JM; Twelker JD; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Nov; 107(11):1612-5. PubMed ID: 2818281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability.
    Yohannan J; Wang J; Brown J; Chauhan BC; Boland MV; Friedman DS; Ramulu PY
    Ophthalmology; 2017 Nov; 124(11):1612-1620. PubMed ID: 28676280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Nelson-Quigg JM
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Feb; 100(2):269-74. PubMed ID: 8437837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.
    Bickler-Bluth M; Trick GL; Kolker AE; Cooper DG
    Ophthalmology; 1989 May; 96(5):616-9. PubMed ID: 2748118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population.
    Becker K; Semes L
    Optometry; 2003 Mar; 74(3):173-9. PubMed ID: 12645850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of reliability indices in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.
    Chauhan BC; Mohandas RN; Whelan JH; McCormick TA
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Jul; 100(7):1089-94. PubMed ID: 8321533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.
    Katz J; Sommer A
    Ophthalmology; 1990 Aug; 97(8):1032-7. PubMed ID: 2402414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.
    Birt CM; Shin DH; Samudrala V; Hughes BA; Kim C; Lee D
    Ophthalmology; 1997 Jul; 104(7):1126-30. PubMed ID: 9224465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Full-threshold versus Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time.
    Schimiti RB; Avelino RR; Kara-José N; Costa VP
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Nov; 109(11):2084-92; discussion 2092. PubMed ID: 12414419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome.
    Lee M; Zulauf M; Caprioli J
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1994 Jun; 117(6):756-61. PubMed ID: 8198159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.
    Katz J; Sommer A; Witt K
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 2023736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability.
    Ophthalmology; 1994 Aug; 101(8):1445-55. PubMed ID: 7741836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Raveendran S; James V; Dasari S; Palakurthy M; Reddy HB; Pradhan ZS; Rao DA; Puttaiah NK; Devi S
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Baseline visual field characteristics in the ocular hypertension treatment study.
    Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Cello KE; Edwards M; Kass MA; Gordon MO; Budenz DL; Gaasterland DE; Werner E;
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Mar; 109(3):432-7. PubMed ID: 11874743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Effect of Testing Reliability on Visual Field Sensitivity in Normal Eyes: The Singapore Chinese Eye Study.
    Tan NYQ; Tham YC; Koh V; Nguyen DQ; Cheung CY; Aung T; Wong TY; Cheng CY
    Ophthalmology; 2018 Jan; 125(1):15-21. PubMed ID: 28863943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.