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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2402414)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Efficacy of the Amsler Grid Test in Evaluating Glaucomatous Central Visual Field Defects.
    Su D; Greenberg A; Simonson JL; Teng CC; Liebmann JM; Ritch R; Park SC
    Ophthalmology; 2016 Apr; 123(4):737-43. PubMed ID: 26783097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Factors that influence the prevalence of positive catch trials in glaucoma patients.
    Reynolds M; Stewart WC; Sutherland S
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1990; 228(4):338-41. PubMed ID: 2401419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Perimetric severity in hospital-based and population-based glaucoma patients.
    Ramesh SV; George R; Raju P; Sachi D; Sunil GT; Vijaya L
    Clin Exp Optom; 2010 Sep; 93(5):349-53. PubMed ID: 20629666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A comparison of false-negative responses for full threshold and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal observers.
    Johnson CA; Sherman K; Doyle C; Wall M
    J Glaucoma; 2014; 23(5):288-92. PubMed ID: 23632399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Estimating progression of visual field loss in glaucoma.
    Katz J; Gilbert D; Quigley HA; Sommer A
    Ophthalmology; 1997 Jun; 104(6):1017-25. PubMed ID: 9186444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
    Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss.
    Goldberg I; Graham SL; Klistorner AI
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Jan; 133(1):29-39. PubMed ID: 11755837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Diagnostic performance of visual field test using subsets of the 24-2 test pattern for early glaucomatous field loss.
    Wang Y; Henson DB
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jan; 54(1):756-61. PubMed ID: 23258149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The Usefulness of Gaze Tracking as an Index of Visual Field Reliability in Glaucoma Patients.
    Ishiyama Y; Murata H; Asaoka R
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2015 Oct; 56(11):6233-6. PubMed ID: 26431476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Objective perimetry in glaucoma.
    Klistorner A; Graham SL
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Dec; 107(12):2283-99. PubMed ID: 11097611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Relationship between visual field index and visual field morphological stages of glaucoma and their diagnostic value].
    Hou XR; Qin JY; Ren ZQ
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2017 Feb; 53(2):92-97. PubMed ID: 28260358
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Visual field progression in glaucoma: what is the specificity of the Guided Progression Analysis?
    Artes PH; O'Leary N; Nicolela MT; Chauhan BC; Crabb DP
    Ophthalmology; 2014 Oct; 121(10):2023-7. PubMed ID: 24878173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP).
    Johnson CA; Sample PA; Cioffi GA; Liebmann JR; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 134(2):177-85. PubMed ID: 12140023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Glaucoma Screening Using an iPad-Based Visual Field Test in a West African Population.
    Prince J; Thompson A; Mwanza JC; Tolleson-Rinehart S; Budenz DL
    Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2022; 5(3):275-283. PubMed ID: 34537412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Interocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary open angle glaucoma and primary angle-closure glaucoma.
    Wang JC; Gazzard G; Foster PJ; Devereux JG; Oen FT; Chew PT; Khaw PT; Seah SK
    Eye (Lond); 2004 Apr; 18(4):365-8. PubMed ID: 15069431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Effect of cataract extraction on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma.
    Smith SD; Katz J; Quigley HA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1997 Dec; 115(12):1515-9. PubMed ID: 9400784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Aminlari A; Sassani JW
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Jan; 100(1):76-84. PubMed ID: 8433832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Efficacy of SLO-Microperimetry and Humphrey for evaluating macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.
    Kulkarni SV; Coupland SG; Stitt DM; Hamilton J; Brownstein JJ; Damji KF
    Can J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 48(5):406-12. PubMed ID: 24093188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma.
    O'Brien C; Poinoosawmy D; Wu J; Hitchings R
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1994 Jul; 78(7):516-9. PubMed ID: 7918261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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