143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21444908)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.
Johnson LN; Baloh FG
J Natl Med Assoc; 1991 Oct; 83(10):895-8. PubMed ID: 1800764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. How long will automated perimetry remain standard practice?
Gutteridge IF
Clin Exp Optom; 2005 Mar; 88(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 15807637
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of the subjective determination of glaucomatous visual field progression.
Tanna AP; Bandi JR; Budenz DL; Feuer WJ; Feldman RM; Herndon LW; Rhee DJ; Whiteside-de Vos J
Ophthalmology; 2011 Jan; 118(1):60-5. PubMed ID: 20723992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Objective measurement of visual field by using visual evoked potentials].
Tobimatsu S
Nihon Rinsho; 1997 Mar; 55 Suppl 1():450-3. PubMed ID: 9097648
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A novel paediatric game-based visual-fields assessor.
Aslam TM; Rahman W; Henson D; Khaw PT
Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Jul; 95(7):921-4. PubMed ID: 21464037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A traffic perimetry test that adheres to the European visual field requirements for group 2 drivers.
Jørstad ØK; Jonsdottir TE; Zysset S; Rowe FJ
Acta Ophthalmol; 2021 Nov; 99(7):e1253-e1254. PubMed ID: 33421353
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The four-meter confrontation visual field test.
Kodsi SR; Younge BR
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 1992; 90():373-80; discussion 380-2. PubMed ID: 1494829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Examination of the peripheral visual field. Obligatory, helpful, or a waste of resources?
Wirtschafter JD
Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Jun; 105(6):761-2. PubMed ID: 3579704
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Agreement of visual field interpretation among glaucoma specialists and comprehensive ophthalmologists: comparison of time and methods.
Lin AP; Katz LJ; Spaeth GL; Moster MR; Henderer JD; Schmidt CM; Myers JS
Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 95(6):828-31. PubMed ID: 20956271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
