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: 2023737)

  • 1. Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry.
    Sanabria O; Feuer WJ; Anderson DR
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):76-8. PubMed ID: 2023737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.
    Katz J; Sommer A
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1988 Sep; 106(9):1252-4. PubMed ID: 3046588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. How effective is perimetry in current practice?
    Trobe JD
    Ophthalmology; 1983 Nov; 90(11):1380-3. PubMed ID: 6664679
    [TBL] [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. Reliability of the first eye and second eye in frequency doubling technology perimetry.
    Mukai S; Tsukamoto H; Iwase A; Mishima HK
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2005; 49(5):417-9. PubMed ID: 16187045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Lower threshold estimates at the onset of automated perimetry causing artefacts in perimetrically naive subjects.
    Preetha MM; George R; Ve RS; Raju P; Vijaya L
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2008 Sep; 28(5):492-6. PubMed ID: 18761486
    [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. Automated perimetry and malingerers. Can the Humphrey be outwitted?
    Stewart JF
    Ophthalmology; 1995 Jan; 102(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 7831037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Usefulness of gaze tracking during perimetry in glaucomatous eyes].
    Kunimatsu S; Suzuki Y; Shirato S; Araie M
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1999 Oct; 103(10):748-53. PubMed ID: 10554550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Perimetry during monocular and binocular fixation with the phase-difference haploscope of Aulhorn].
    Brewitt H; Honegger H; Poppendieck N
    Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol; 1978 Jul; 207(2):123-36. PubMed ID: 308780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluating the accuracy of the visual field index for the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma.
    Talbot R; Goldberg I; Kelly P
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 156(6):1272-6. PubMed ID: 24075425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry.
    Katz J; Tielsch JM; Quigley HA; Sommer A
    Ophthalmology; 1995 Jan; 102(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 7831036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The ability of healthy volunteers to simulate a neurologic field defect on automated perimetry.
    Ghate D; Bodnarchuk B; Sanders S; Deokule S; Kedar S
    Ophthalmology; 2014 Mar; 121(3):759-62. PubMed ID: 24314835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.