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.
179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25050326)
1. Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes. Wroblewski D; Francis BA; Sadun A; Vakili G; Chopra V Biomed Res Int; 2014; 2014():206082. PubMed ID: 25050326 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Validation of a Head-mounted Virtual Reality Visual Field Screening Device. Mees L; Upadhyaya S; Kumar P; Kotawala S; Haran S; Rajasekar S; Friedman DS; Venkatesh R J Glaucoma; 2020 Feb; 29(2):86-91. PubMed ID: 31790067 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients. Phu J; Wang H; Kalloniatis M Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2024 Jan; 44(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 37803502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of a Novel Head-Mounted Objective Auto-perimetry (Gaze Analyzing Perimeter) and Humphrey Field Analyzer. Miyake M; Mori Y; Wada S; Yamada K; Shiraishi R; Numa S; Suda K; Kameda T; Ikeda H; Akagi T; Aibara T; Tamura H; Tsujikawa A Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2024; 7(5):445-453. PubMed ID: 38823680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Comparison of visual field sensitivities between the Medmont automated perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser. Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham SL Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Apr; 38(3):273-6. PubMed ID: 20447123 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison and Correlation of Retinal Sensitivity Between Microperimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Low-tension Glaucoma. Tepelus TC; Song S; Nittala MG; Nassisi M; Sadda SR; Chopra V J Glaucoma; 2020 Oct; 29(10):975-980. PubMed ID: 32649448 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA. Fredette MJ; Giguère A; Anderson DR; Budenz DL; McSoley J Optom Vis Sci; 2015 May; 92(5):527-36. PubMed ID: 25875683 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of Visual Field Measurement with Heidelberg Edge Perimeter and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in Patients with Ocular Hypertension. Kaczorowski K; Mulak M; Szumny D; Baranowska M; Jakubaszko-Jabłońska J; Misiuk-Hojło M Adv Clin Exp Med; 2016; 25(5):937-944. PubMed ID: 28028959 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Eye Movement Perimetry and Frequency Doubling Perimetry: clinical performance and patient preference during glaucoma screening. Meethal NSK; Pel JJM; Mazumdar D; Asokan R; Panday M; van der Steen J; George R Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 257(6):1277-1287. PubMed ID: 30944987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients. Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Zangwill L; Lee AC; Kono Y; Weinreb RN Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 10704545 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP): a novel technique for automated static perimetry in children using eye tracking. Murray I; Perperidis A; Brash H; Cameron L; McTrusty A; Fleck B; Minns R Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2013; 2013():3186-9. PubMed ID: 24110405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects. Fogagnolo P; Modarelli A; Oddone F; Digiuni M; Montesano G; Orzalesi N; Rossetti L Eur J Ophthalmol; 2016 Nov; 26(6):598-606. PubMed ID: 27375066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients. Hirasawa K; Takahashi N; Satou T; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N Curr Eye Res; 2017 Aug; 42(8):1160-1168. PubMed ID: 28441081 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Remote Perimetry in a Virtual Reality Metaverse Environment for Out-of-Hospital Functional Eye Screening Compared Against the Gold Standard Humphrey Visual Fields Perimeter: Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study. Wong KA; Ang BCH; Gunasekeran DV; Husain R; Boon J; Vikneson K; Tan ZPQ; Tan GSW; Wong TY; Agrawal R J Med Internet Res; 2023 Oct; 25():e45044. PubMed ID: 37856179 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Compass fundus automated perimetry. Fogagnolo P; Digiuni M; Montesano G; Rui C; Morales M; Rossetti L Eur J Ophthalmol; 2018 Sep; 28(5):481-490. PubMed ID: 29564933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Validation of a Wearable Virtual Reality Perimeter for Glaucoma Staging, The NOVA Trial: Novel Virtual Reality Field Assessment. Bradley C; Ahmed IIK; Samuelson TW; Chaglasian M; Barnebey H; Radcliffe N; Bacharach J Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2024 Mar; 13(3):10. PubMed ID: 38488433 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]