146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2402414)
1. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.
Katz J; Sommer A
Ophthalmology; 1990 Aug; 97(8):1032-7. PubMed ID: 2402414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.
Birt CM; Shin DH; Samudrala V; Hughes BA; Kim C; Lee D
Ophthalmology; 1997 Jul; 104(7):1126-30. PubMed ID: 9224465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.
Katz J; Sommer A; Witt K
Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 2023736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.
Katz J; Sommer A
Arch Ophthalmol; 1988 Sep; 106(9):1252-4. PubMed ID: 3046588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect using a screening program of Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Hong C; Song KY; Youn DH; Park WH
Korean J Ophthalmol; 1990 Jun; 4(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 2214247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field.
McMillan TA; Stewart WC; Hunt HH
Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Oct; 70(5):665-70. PubMed ID: 1471493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma.
Bengtsson B
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2000 Oct; 78(5):519-22. PubMed ID: 11037906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Anderson criteria in early glaucomatous visual field defects with the SITA Standard].
Suzumura H; Yoshikawa K; Kimura T; Yamazaki S
Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 2011 May; 115(5):435-9. PubMed ID: 21706836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Ophthalmology; 2002 Jun; 109(6):1052-8. PubMed ID: 12045043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability.
Yohannan J; Wang J; Brown J; Chauhan BC; Boland MV; Friedman DS; Ramulu PY
Ophthalmology; 2017 Nov; 124(11):1612-1620. PubMed ID: 28676280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.
Blumenthal EZ; Sapir-Pichhadze R
Ophthalmology; 2003 Jan; 110(1):196-200. PubMed ID: 12511366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Association Between Visual Field Reliability Indices and Cognitive Impairment in Glaucoma Patients.
Raman P; Khy Ching Y; Sivagurunathan PD; Ramli N; Mohd Khalid KH
J Glaucoma; 2019 Aug; 28(8):685-690. PubMed ID: 31033782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma.
Rao HL; Yadav RK; Begum VU; Addepalli UK; Choudhari NS; Senthil S; Garudadri CS
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Jan; 133(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 25256758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
Rao HL; Raveendran S; James V; Dasari S; Palakurthy M; Reddy HB; Pradhan ZS; Rao DA; Puttaiah NK; Devi S
J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effects of Mozart's music on the performance of glaucoma patients on automated perimetry.
Shue B; Chatterjee A; Fudemberg S; Katz LJ; Moster MR; Navarro MJ; Pro M; Schmidt C; Spaeth GL; Stirbu O; Yalcin A; Myers JS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7347-9. PubMed ID: 21828156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season.
Junoy Montolio FG; Wesselink C; Gordijn M; Jansonius NM
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Oct; 53(11):7010-7. PubMed ID: 22952121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
Tatemichi M; Nakano T; Tanaka K; Hayashi T; Nawa T; Miyamoto T; Hiro H; Iwasaki A; Sugita M;
Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Oct; 134(4):529-37. PubMed ID: 12383809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.
Goukon H; Hirasawa K; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N
PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0224711. PubMed ID: 31697732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
