1343 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19560207)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma].
Nowomiejska K; Paetzold J; Krapp E; Rejdak R; Zagórski Z; Schiefer U
Klin Oczna; 2004; 106(1-2 Suppl):231-3. PubMed ID: 15510509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [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]
25. Repeatability of frequency doubling technology perimetry (20-1 screening program) and the effect of pupillary dilatation on interpretation.
Parikh R; Muliyil J; George R; Bhat S; Thomas R
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2008; 15(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 18300088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population.
Rowe FJ; Sueke H; Gawley SD
Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Jun; 94(6):757-62. PubMed ID: 20447958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Test-retest variability for standard automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry in diabetic patients.
Bengtsson B; Hellgren KJ; Agardh E
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 86(2):170-6. PubMed ID: 17935606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [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]
30. Progression of visual field defects in leber hereditary optic neuropathy: experience of the LHON treatment trial.
Newman NJ; Biousse V; Newman SA; Bhatti MT; Hamilton SR; Farris BK; Lesser RL; Turbin RE
Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Jun; 141(6):1061-1067. PubMed ID: 16765674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Pupillary dilation and its effects on automated perimetry results.
Kudrna GR; Stanley MA; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):675-80. PubMed ID: 8576532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Multiple-stimulus presentation and voice control in automated perimetry.
Mueller AJ; Lachenmayr BJ; Eckstein A; Hölzl M
Ger J Ophthalmol; 1992; 1(2):91-5. PubMed ID: 1477632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Subjective detection of visual field defects using home TV set.
Shirato S; Adachi M; Hara T
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1991; 35(3):273-81. PubMed ID: 1770667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects and visual field abnormalities by humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Lee MJ; Kim DM; Jeoung JW; Hwang SS; Kim TW; Park KH
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Jun; 143(6):1056-8. PubMed ID: 17524781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Impact of diabetes on glaucoma screening using frequency-doubling perimetry.
Realini T; Lai MQ; Barber L
Ophthalmology; 2004 Nov; 111(11):2133-6. PubMed ID: 15522382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The reliability of frequency-doubling perimetry in young children.
Blumenthal EZ; Haddad A; Horani A; Anteby I
Ophthalmology; 2004 Mar; 111(3):435-9. PubMed ID: 15019315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The usefulness of the Noise-Field Test as a screening method for visual field defects.
Adachi M; Shirato S
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1994; 38(4):392-9. PubMed ID: 7723208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Does frequency doubling technology perimetry reliably detect neurological visual field defects?
Fong KC; Byles DB; Constable PH
Eye (Lond); 2003 Apr; 17(3):330-3. PubMed ID: 12724694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Rotary Diamond Chart--a new visual field screening device.
Freed DM; Semes LP; Potter JW
J Am Optom Assoc; 1992 Feb; 63(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 1583271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A child with epilepsy in whom multifocal VEPs facilitated the objective measurement of the visual field.
Yukawa E; Kim YJ; Kawasaki K; Taketani F; Hara Y
Epilepsia; 2005 Apr; 46(4):577-9. PubMed ID: 15816954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
