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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25642647)

  • 1. Quantitative measurement of fixation stability during RareBit perimetry and Humphrey visual field testing.
    Lin SR; Lai IN; Dutta S; Singh K; Chang RT
    J Glaucoma; 2015 Feb; 24(2):100-4. PubMed ID: 25642647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Parallel rarebits: a novel, large-scale visual field screening method.
    Lin SR; Fijalkowski N; Lin BR; Li F; Singh K; Chang RT
    Clin Exp Optom; 2014 Nov; 97(6):528-33. PubMed ID: 25331077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Pilot study comparing a new virtual reality-based visual field test to standard perimetry in children.
    Mesfin Y; Kong A; Backus BT; Deiner M; Ou Y; Oatts JT
    J AAPOS; 2024 Jun; 28(3):103933. PubMed ID: 38729256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A new visual field test in empty sella syndrome: rarebit perimetry.
    Yavas GF; Küsbeci T; Eser O; Ermis SS; Coşar M; Oztürk F
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(4):628-32. PubMed ID: 18609487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fixation stability during Rarebit Fovea Test.
    Nilsson MM; Stevenson SB; Kumar G; Martin L; Brautaset RL
    Clin Exp Optom; 2009 Jan; 92(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 18637108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. M&S Smart System Contrast Sensitivity Measurements Compared With Standard Visual Function Measurements in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients.
    Liu JL; McAnany JJ; Wilensky JT; Aref AA; Vajaranant TS
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Jun; 26(6):528-533. PubMed ID: 28333894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effects of acutely lowering intraocular pressure on the results of multifocal visual evoked potential testing.
    Jindal AP; Fleischman D; Leiby B; Spaeth GL; Myers JS; Katz LJ
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2011 Nov; 89(7):e550-4. PubMed ID: 21599873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry.
    Agarwal HC; Gulati V; Sihota R
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Dec; 48(4):301-6. PubMed ID: 11340889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Central perimetric sensitivity estimates are directly influenced by the fixation target.
    Denniss J; Astle AT
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2016 Jul; 36(4):453-8. PubMed ID: 27146101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rarebit perimetry in the evaluation of visual field defects in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
    Celebisoy N; Oztürk T; Köse T
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2010; 20(4):756-62. PubMed ID: 20306442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry.
    Brusini P; Salvetat ML; Parisi L; Zeppieri M
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2005 Feb; 89(2):180-4. PubMed ID: 15665349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Kinetic and static fixation methods in automated threshold perimetry.
    Asman P; Fingeret M; Robin A; Wild J; Pacey I; Greenfield D; Liebmann J; Ritch R
    J Glaucoma; 1999 Oct; 8(5):290-6. PubMed ID: 10529927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the monocular Humphrey Visual Field and the binocular Humphrey Esterman Visual Field test for driver licensing in glaucoma subjects in Sweden.
    Ayala M
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2012 Aug; 12():35. PubMed ID: 22856469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Can Visual Field Progression be Predicted by Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopic Imaging of the Optic Nerve Head in Glaucoma? (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis).
    Danias J; Serle J
    Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2015; 113():T4. PubMed ID: 26549913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fixation stability during binocular viewing in patients with age-related macular degeneration.
    Tarita-Nistor L; Brent MH; Steinbach MJ; González EG
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Mar; 52(3):1887-93. PubMed ID: 21071732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Stability of fixation in healthy subjects during automated perimetry.
    Eizenman M; Trope GE; Fortinsky M; Murphy PH
    Can J Ophthalmol; 1992 Dec; 27(7):336-40. PubMed ID: 1490243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Humphrey visual field and frequency doubling perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma.
    Chandrasekhar G; Kunjam V; Rao VS; Nutheti R
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2003 Mar; 51(1):35-8. PubMed ID: 12701860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Effect of Attention on Fixation Stability During Dynamic Fixation Testing in Stargardt Disease.
    Schönbach EM; Strauss RW; Ibrahim MA; Janes JL; Cideciyan AV; Birch DG; Sunness JS; Zrenner E; Ip MS; Kong X; Sadda SR; Scholl HPN;
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2020 Sep; 217():305-316. PubMed ID: 32422174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.