141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20385890)
1. Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests.
Kerr NM; Chew SS; Eady EK; Gamble GD; Danesh-Meyer HV
Neurology; 2010 Apr; 74(15):1184-90. PubMed ID: 20385890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests.
Prasad S; Cohen AB
Neurology; 2011 Mar; 76(13):1192-3; author reply 1193. PubMed ID: 21444908
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Gomes PR; Pierre ET; Pierre LM
Eye (Lond); 2010 May; 24(5):851-6. PubMed ID: 19680272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Central field perimetry of discriminated targets: I. Results for normal individuals using high-contrast targets.
Yavuz GA; Unver YB; Bekiroglu N; Presti P; Sinclair SH
Eye (Lond); 2009 Nov; 23(11):2082-9. PubMed ID: 19648898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation.
Pandit RJ; Gales K; Griffiths PG
Lancet; 2001 Oct; 358(9290):1339-40. PubMed ID: 11684217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Red colour comparison perimetry chart in neuro-ophthalmological examination.
Mutlukan E; Cullen JF
Eye (Lond); 1991; 5 ( Pt 3)():352-61. PubMed ID: 1955060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of an automated confrontation testing device versus finger counting in the detection of field loss.
Bass SJ; Cooper J; Feldman J; Horn D
Optometry; 2007 Aug; 78(8):390-5. PubMed ID: 17662927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Spatial and temporal stimulus variants for multifocal pupillography of the central visual field.
Sabeti F; James AC; Maddess T
Vision Res; 2011 Jan; 51(2):303-10. PubMed ID: 20951157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rarebit perimetry for bedside testing: comparison with standard automated perimetry.
Steven Houston SK; Weber ED; Koga SF; Newman SA
J Neuroophthalmol; 2010 Sep; 30(3):243-7. PubMed ID: 20548245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Signal/noise analysis to compare tests for measuring visual field loss and its progression.
Artes PH; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Oct; 50(10):4700-8. PubMed ID: 19458326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Signal/noise ratios to compare tests for measuring visual field progression.
Ernest PJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2010 Dec; 51(12):6893; author reply 6893-4. PubMed ID: 21123778
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The methodology of visual field testing with frequency doubling technology in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005-2006.
Terry AL; Paulose-Ram R; Tilert TJ; Johnson CA; Zhang X; Lee PP; Saaddine JB
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2010 Dec; 17(6):411-21. PubMed ID: 21090914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A review of current technology used in evaluating visual function in glaucoma.
Turalba AV; Grosskreutz C
Semin Ophthalmol; 2010; 25(5-6):309-16. PubMed ID: 21091017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Interpretation of visual field defects respecting the vertical meridian and not related to distinct chiasmal or postchiasmal lesions.
Shikishima K; Kitahara K; Mizobuchi T; Yoshida M
J Clin Neurosci; 2006 Nov; 13(9):923-8. PubMed ID: 17085298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Magnocellular and parvocellular visual pathway contributions to visual field anisotropies.
McAnany JJ; Levine MW
Vision Res; 2007 Aug; 47(17):2327-36. PubMed ID: 17662333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative resilience of clinical perimetric tests to induced levels of intraocular straylight.
Gonzalez-Hernandez M; Gonzalez de la Rosa M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Aug; 53(9):5748; author reply 5749. PubMed ID: 22915213
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The groningen longitudinal glaucoma study III. The predictive value of frequency-doubling perimetry and GDx nerve fibre analyser test results for the development of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Heeg GP; Jansonius NM
Eye (Lond); 2009 Aug; 23(8):1647-52. PubMed ID: 19011607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal children.
Quinn LM; Gardiner SK; Wheeler DT; Newkirk M; Johnson CA
Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Dec; 142(6):983-9. PubMed ID: 17046702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An algorithm for visual fields.
Trobe JD; Acosta PC
Surv Ophthalmol; 1980; 24(6):665-70. PubMed ID: 7414506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
