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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20837813)

  • 1. Target visual field: a technique to rapidly demonstrate nonorganic visual field constriction.
    Hsu JL; Haley CM; Foroozan R
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2010 Sep; 128(9):1220-2. PubMed ID: 20837813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Functional constriction of the ocular motor field: description and preliminary evaluation of a new technique to help distinguish organic from nonorganic visual field loss.
    Ali N
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 31(2):131-4. PubMed ID: 21368668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The validity of screening for open-angle glaucoma in high-risk populations with single-test screening mode frequency doubling technology perimetry (FDT).
    Kamdeu Fansi AA; Li G; Harasymowycz PJ
    J Glaucoma; 2011 Mar; 20(3):167-71. PubMed ID: 20436361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Modified visual field trend analysis.
    De Moraes CG; Ritch R; Tello C; Liebmann JM
    J Glaucoma; 2011; 20(4):203-6. PubMed ID: 20520567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Multifocal visual evoked potential in nonorganic visual field loss.
    Massicotte EC; Semela L; Hedges TR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 Mar; 123(3):364-7. PubMed ID: 15767479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Threshold perimetry of each eye with both eyes open in patients with monocular functional (nonorganic) and organic vision loss.
    Hoffman DJ; Wilson R
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1999 Feb; 127(2):242-3. PubMed ID: 10030586
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A new index to monitor central visual field progression in glaucoma.
    de Moraes CG; Furlanetto RL; Ritch R; Liebmann JM
    Ophthalmology; 2014 Aug; 121(8):1531-8. PubMed ID: 24726202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Supervision during automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Sassani JW; Aminlari A
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Aug; 107(8):1439-40. PubMed ID: 10919883
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Stimulus parameters for multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry.
    James AC; Kolic M; Bedford SM; Maddess T
    J Glaucoma; 2012 Dec; 21(9):571-8. PubMed ID: 21623219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peripapillary choroidal thickness in both eyes of glaucoma patients with unilateral visual field loss.
    Li L; Bian A; Zhou Q; Mao J
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 156(6):1277-1284.e1. PubMed ID: 24011520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Distinguishing wet from dry age-related macular degeneration using three-dimensional computer-automated threshold Amsler grid testing.
    Robison CD; Jivrajka RV; Bababeygy SR; Fink W; Sadun AA; Sebag J
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Oct; 95(10):1419-23. PubMed ID: 21270434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma.
    Liu S; Lam S; Weinreb RN; Ye C; Cheung CY; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7325-31. PubMed ID: 21810975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Diagnostic performance of visual field test using subsets of the 24-2 test pattern for early glaucomatous field loss.
    Wang Y; Henson DB
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jan; 54(1):756-61. PubMed ID: 23258149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.