300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23924985)
1. Comparison of automated and manual perimetry in patients with blepharoptosis.
Alniemi ST; Pang NK; Woog JJ; Bradley EA
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2013; 29(5):361-3. PubMed ID: 23924985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields.
Riemann CD; Hanson S; Foster JA
Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Jan; 118(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 10636416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?
Szatmáry G; Biousse V; Newman NJ
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1162-73. PubMed ID: 12215089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Tangent screen perimetry in the evaluation of visual field defects associated with ptosis and dermatochalasis.
Fuller ML; Briceño CA; Nelson CC; Bradley EA
PLoS One; 2017; 12(3):e0174607. PubMed ID: 28355310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluating the visual field effects of blepharoptosis using automated static perimetry.
Meyer DR; Stern JH; Jarvis JM; Lininger LL
Ophthalmology; 1993 May; 100(5):651-8; discussion 658-9. PubMed ID: 8493006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of tangent screen, goldmann, and humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions.
Wong AM; Sharpe JA
Ophthalmology; 2000 Mar; 107(3):527-44. PubMed ID: 10711892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.
Shahinfar S; Johnson LN; Madsen RW
Ophthalmology; 1995 Jun; 102(6):872-7. PubMed ID: 7777293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.
Trope GE; Britton R
Br J Ophthalmol; 1987 Jul; 71(7):489-93. PubMed ID: 3307897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss.
Nowomiejska K; Vonthein R; Paetzold J; Zagorski Z; Kardon R; Schiefer U
Ophthalmology; 2005 Aug; 112(8):1343-54. PubMed ID: 15996734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Visual field assessment and the Austroads driving standard.
McLean IM; Mueller E; Buttery RG; Mackey DA
Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Feb; 30(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 11885792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry.
Bevers C; Blanckaert G; Van Keer K; Fils JF; Vandewalle E; Stalmans I
Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 97(4):e499-e505. PubMed ID: 30345638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry.
Patel A; Wollstein G; Ishikawa H; Schuman JS
Ophthalmology; 2007 Mar; 114(3):480-7. PubMed ID: 17123623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in healthy controls.
Redmond T; O'Leary N; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; Artes PH; Chauhan BC
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 131(12):1565-72. PubMed ID: 24177807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.
Beck RW; Bergstrom TJ; Lichter PR
Ophthalmology; 1985 Jan; 92(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 3974997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Identification of functional visual field loss by automated static perimetry.
Frisén L
Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 92(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 24698019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Visual loss in pseudotumor cerebri. Incidence and defects related to visual field strategy.
Wall M; George D
Arch Neurol; 1987 Feb; 44(2):170-5. PubMed ID: 3813933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Investigation of goldmann perimetry in evaluation of patients for upper eyelid blepharoplasty.
Pemberton JD; Salter M; Fay A; Thuro B; Spencer H; Dajani O
Orbit; 2018 Feb; 37(1):48-52. PubMed ID: 28812936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
