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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25340390)

  • 1. Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm: analysis of large-scale data from clinics.
    Saunders LJ; Russell RA; Crabb DP
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Jan; 133(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 25340390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data.
    Russell RA; Crabb DP; Malik R; Garway-Heath DF
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Sep; 53(10):5985-90. PubMed ID: 22879418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Comparison of the Visual Field Parameters of SITA Faster and SITA Standard Strategies in Glaucoma.
    Lavanya R; Riyazuddin M; Dasari S; Puttaiah NK; Venugopal JP; Pradhan ZS; Devi S; Sreenivasaiah S; Ganeshrao SB; Rao HL
    J Glaucoma; 2020 Sep; 29(9):783-788. PubMed ID: 32459685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The Effect of Transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on Visual Field Performance.
    Pham AT; Ramulu PY; Boland MV; Yohannan J
    Ophthalmology; 2021 Oct; 128(10):1417-1425. PubMed ID: 33798655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparing the usefulness of a new algorithm to measure visual field using the variational Bayes linear regression in glaucoma patients, in comparison to the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm.
    Murata H; Asaoka R; Fujino Y; Matsuura M; Hirasawa K; Shimada S; Shoji N
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2022 May; 106(5):660-666. PubMed ID: 33441321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Faster algorithms to measure visual field using the variational Bayes linear regression model in glaucoma: comparison with SITA-Fast.
    Hirasawa K; Murata H; Shimada S; Matsuno M; Shoji N; Asaoka R
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2023 Jul; 107(7):946-952. PubMed ID: 35232725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.
    Artes PH; Iwase A; Ohno Y; Kitazawa Y; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Aug; 43(8):2654-9. PubMed ID: 12147599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast for following visual fields in prepubertal idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
    Stiebel-Kalish H; Lusky M; Yassur Y; Kalish Y; Shuper A; Erlich R; Lubman S; Snir M
    Ophthalmology; 2004 Sep; 111(9):1673-5. PubMed ID: 15350321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quantification and Predictors of Visual Field Variability in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucomatous Eyes Using SITA-Faster.
    Tan JCK; Agar A; Kalloniatis M; Phu J
    Ophthalmology; 2024 Jun; 131(6):658-666. PubMed ID: 38110124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter?
    Kelly SR; Bryan SR; Crabb DP
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Sep; 97(6):e833-e838. PubMed ID: 30801992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of threshold estimation and learning effect of two perimetric strategies, SITA Fast and CLIP, in damaged visual fields.
    Capris P; Autuori S; Capris E; Papadia M
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 18320509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster.
    Le CT; Fiksel J; Ramulu P; Yohannan J
    Sci Rep; 2022 Apr; 12(1):7001. PubMed ID: 35488026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Visual Field Evaluation Using Zippy Adaptive Threshold Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast in Patients With Glaucoma and Healthy Individuals.
    Nasim P; Ve RS; Kuzhuppilly NIR; Naik P; Ballae Ganeshrao S; Artes PH
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2024 Jan; 13(1):28. PubMed ID: 38289611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Evaluation of the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm, a new thresholding algorithm, of the Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects].
    Tsuji A; Inazumi K; Yamamoto T; Kitazawa Y
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Jun; 102(6):359-64. PubMed ID: 9656685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Risk factors for visual field progression in treated glaucoma.
    De Moraes CG; Juthani VJ; Liebmann JM; Teng CC; Tello C; Susanna R; Ritch R
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2011 May; 129(5):562-8. PubMed ID: 21555607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
    Delgado MF; Nguyen NT; Cox TA; Singh K; Lee DA; Dueker DK; Fechtner RD; Juzych MS; Lin SC; Netland PA; Pastor SA; Schuman JS; Samples JR;
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Dec; 109(12):2362-74. PubMed ID: 12466186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Comparison between the Compass Fundus Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Montesano G; Bryan SR; Crabb DP; Fogagnolo P; Oddone F; McKendrick AM; Turpin A; Lanzetta P; Perdicchi A; Johnson CA; Garway-Heath DF; Brusini P; Rossetti LM
    Ophthalmology; 2019 Feb; 126(2):242-251. PubMed ID: 30114416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing.
    Sekhar GC; Naduvilath TJ; Lakkai M; Jayakumar AJ; Pandi GT; Mandal AK; Honavar SG
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Jul; 107(7):1303-8. PubMed ID: 10889102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.