103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2021588)
41. Programme choice for perimetry in neurological conditions (PoPiN): a systematic review of perimetry options and patterns of visual field loss.
Hepworth LR; Rowe FJ
BMC Ophthalmol; 2018 Sep; 18(1):241. PubMed ID: 30200926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma.
Mönter VM; Crabb DP; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Feb; 58(2):868-875. PubMed ID: 28159974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Comparative evaluation of oculokinetic perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma.
Alvarez E; Damato BE; Jay JL; McClure E
Br J Ophthalmol; 1988 Apr; 72(4):258-62. PubMed ID: 3378021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Visual acuity and pattern of visual field loss at presentation in pituitary adenoma.
Ogra S; Nichols AD; Stylli S; Kaye AH; Savino PJ; Danesh-Meyer HV
J Clin Neurosci; 2014 May; 21(5):735-40. PubMed ID: 24656736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. [Basic and clinical aspects of modern perimetry].
Otori T
Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Dec; 102(12):779-95. PubMed ID: 10025112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Calibration of the Dicon Auto Perimeter 2000 compared with that of the Goldmann perimeter.
Hart WM; Gordon MO
Am J Ophthalmol; 1983 Dec; 96(6):744-50. PubMed ID: 6660263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Pituitary tumor volume as a predictor of postoperative visual field recovery. Quantitative analysis using automated static perimetry and computed tomography morphometry.
Hudson H; Rissell C; Gauderman WJ; Feldon SE
J Clin Neuroophthalmol; 1991 Dec; 11(4):280-3. PubMed ID: 1838550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Quantitative Analysis of the Displacement of the Anterior Visual Pathway by Pituitary Lesions and the Associated Visual Field Loss.
Boland MV; Lee IH; Zan E; Yousem DM; Miller NR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Jul; 57(8):3576-80. PubMed ID: 27388050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Evaluation of stimulus velocity in automated kinetic perimetry in young healthy participants.
Hirasawa K; Shoji N; Okada A; Takano K; Tomioka S
Vision Res; 2014 May; 98():83-8. PubMed ID: 24705075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Pupillometer-based objective chromatic perimetry in normal eyes and patients with retinal photoreceptor dystrophies.
Skaat A; Sher I; Kolker A; Elyasiv S; Rosenfeld E; Mhajna M; Melamed S; Belkin M; Rotenstreich Y
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Apr; 54(4):2761-70. PubMed ID: 23482470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. The effect of somatostatin analogue on chiasmal dysfunction from pituitary macroadenomas.
Warnet A; Timsit J; Chanson P; Guillausseau PJ; Zamfirescu F; Harris AG; Derome P; Cophignon J; Lubetzki J
J Neurosurg; 1989 Nov; 71(5 Pt 1):687-90. PubMed ID: 2809722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Clinical features associated with lesions other than pituitary adenoma in patients with an optic chiasmal syndrome.
Mejico LJ; Miller NR; Dong LM
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 May; 137(5):908-13. PubMed ID: 15126157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss.
Wall M; Doyle CK; Eden T; Zamba KD; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jun; 54(6):3975-83. PubMed ID: 23633660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Oculokinetic perimetry compared with Humphrey visual field analysis in the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Wishart PK
Eye (Lond); 1993; 7 ( Pt 1)():113-21. PubMed ID: 8325400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. [Vigabatrin and visual field defects. A Danish material with evaluation of different screening methods].
Riise P; Fledelius HC; Rogvi-Hansen Bà
Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Mar; 165(10):1034-8. PubMed ID: 12645411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. [Temporal summation of normal eyes and impaired regions of the visual field].
Ogawa T; Furuno F; Seki A; Suzumura H; Yabuki K; Matsuo H
Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1984 Sep; 88(9):1216-23. PubMed ID: 6524546
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Scotomatous defects in the central visual field in pituitary adenomas.
Sugita K; Sato O; Hirota T; Tsugane R; Kageyama N
Neurochirurgia (Stuttg); 1975 Sep; 18(5):155-62. PubMed ID: 172816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Optimal rates of movement for kinetic perimetry.
Johnson CA; Keltner JL
Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Jan; 105(1):73-5. PubMed ID: 3800748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. A comparison between Humphrey and frequency doubling perimetry for chiasmal visual field defects.
Noval S; Contreras I; Rebolleda G; Muñoz-Negrete FJ; Ruiz de Zárate B
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(6):739-45. PubMed ID: 16329059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Comparison of Three Visual Field Tests in Children: Frequency Doubling Test, 24-2 and 30-2 SITA Perimetry.
Han S; Baek SH; Kim US
Semin Ophthalmol; 2017; 32(5):647-650. PubMed ID: 27404791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
