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 *

97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21051713)

  • 1. The influence of sampling errors on test-retest variability in perimetry.
    Maddess T
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Feb; 52(2):1014-22. PubMed ID: 21051713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Modeling the relative influence of fixation and sampling errors on retest variability in perimetry.
    Maddess T
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2014 Oct; 252(10):1611-9. PubMed ID: 25074042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
    Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli.
    Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):426-35. PubMed ID: 9040476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression?
    Turpin A; McKendrick AM
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 May; 52(6):3237-45. PubMed ID: 21357405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
    Chauhan BC; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Blink frequency and duration during perimetry and their relationship to test-retest threshold variability.
    Wang Y; Toor SS; Gautam R; Henson DB
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Jun; 52(7):4546-50. PubMed ID: 21447676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population.
    Akar Y; Yilmaz A; Yucel I
    Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(5):329-33. PubMed ID: 18617757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test-retest variability in glaucoma.
    Turpin A; Jankovic D; McKendrick AM
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Apr; 48(4):1627-34. PubMed ID: 17389493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
    Spry PG; Johnson CA; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 May; 42(6):1404-10. PubMed ID: 11328758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
    Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of a two-stage neural model of glaucomatous defect: an approach to reduce test-retest variability.
    Pan F; Swanson WH; Dul MW
    Optom Vis Sci; 2006 Jul; 83(7):499-511. PubMed ID: 16840874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma.
    Bjerre A; Grigg JR; Parry NR; Henson DB
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Nov; 45(11):4035-40. PubMed ID: 15505053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2.
    Huang CQ; Carolan J; Redline D; Taravati P; Woodward KR; Johnson CA; Wall M; Keltner JL
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):917-23. PubMed ID: 18326712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.
    Artes PH; Iwase A; Ohno Y; Kitazawa Y; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Aug; 43(8):2654-9. PubMed ID: 12147599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Variability of rarebit and standard perimetry sizes I and III in normals.
    Vislisel JM; Doyle CK; Johnson CA; Wall M
    Optom Vis Sci; 2011 May; 88(5):635-9. PubMed ID: 21336225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test-retest variability, learning effect, normative range, influence of optical defocus, and cataract extraction.
    Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Parisi L; Brusini P
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Nov; 48(11):5320-31. PubMed ID: 17962489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sensitivity and specificity of the Humphrey Matrix to detect homonymous hemianopias.
    Taravati P; Woodward KR; Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Redline D; Carolan J; Huang CQ; Wall M
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):924-8. PubMed ID: 18326713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.