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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2402414)

  • 21. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.
    Bickler-Bluth M; Trick GL; Kolker AE; Cooper DG
    Ophthalmology; 1989 May; 96(5):616-9. PubMed ID: 2748118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Nelson-Quigg JM
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Feb; 100(2):269-74. PubMed ID: 8437837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.
    Nelson-Quigg JM; Twelker JD; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Nov; 107(11):1612-5. PubMed ID: 2818281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparison of the OKP visual field screening test with the Humphrey field analyser.
    Vernon SA; Quigley HA
    Eye (Lond); 1992; 6 ( Pt 5)():521-4. PubMed ID: 1286719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability.
    Ophthalmology; 1994 Aug; 101(8):1445-55. PubMed ID: 7741836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Performance of an iPad Application to Detect Moderate and Advanced Visual Field Loss in Nepal.
    Johnson CA; Thapa S; George Kong YX; Robin AL
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2017 Oct; 182():147-154. PubMed ID: 28844641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Glaucoma diagnostics.
    Geimer SA
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Visual field damage proximal to fixation in normal- and high-tension glaucoma eyes.
    Koseki N; Araie M; Suzuki Y; Yamagami J
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1995; 39(3):274-83. PubMed ID: 8577079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing.
    Kramer BC; Musch DC; Niziol LM; Weizer JS
    Ophthalmology; 2012 Feb; 119(2):304-7. PubMed ID: 22115714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Can the current oculokinetic perimetry chart be improved?
    Chia WL; Goldberg I
    Aust N Z J Ophthalmol; 1999 Oct; 27(5):312-7. PubMed ID: 10571391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Visual field defects in normal tension glaucoma and primary open angle glaucoma. Comparison in the late stage of disease].
    Hori J; Aihara M; Suzuki Y; Araie M
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1994 Oct; 98(10):968-73. PubMed ID: 7976833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Development of a test grid using Eye Movement Perimetry for screening glaucomatous visual field defects.
    Kadavath Meethal NS; Mazumdar D; Asokan R; Panday M; van der Steen J; Vermeer KA; Lemij HG; George RJ; Pel JJM
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2018 Feb; 256(2):371-379. PubMed ID: 29282563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
    Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
    Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
    Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Cello KE; Nelson-Quigg JM; Johnson CA
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):314-22. PubMed ID: 10704546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. How does glaucoma look?: patient perception of visual field loss.
    Crabb DP; Smith ND; Glen FC; Burton R; Garway-Heath DF
    Ophthalmology; 2013 Jun; 120(6):1120-6. PubMed ID: 23415421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Oculokinetic perimetry compared with standard perimetric threshold testing.
    Felius J; Langerhorst CT; van den Berg TJ; Greve EL
    Int Ophthalmol; 1992 Sep; 16(4-5):221-6. PubMed ID: 1428547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Recognizing glaucomatous field loss with the Humphrey STATPAC.
    Enger C; Sommer A
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Oct; 105(10):1355-7. PubMed ID: 3662906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.
    Sample PA; Medeiros FA; Racette L; Pascual JP; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Bowd C; Weinreb RN
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Aug; 47(8):3381-9. PubMed ID: 16877406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.