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 *

186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25802251)

  • 1. Choosing two points to add to the 24-2 pattern to better describe macular visual field damage due to glaucoma.
    Chen S; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2015 Sep; 99(9):1236-9. PubMed ID: 25802251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The efficacy of the dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing.
    Huang AS; Smith SD; Quigley HA
    J Glaucoma; 1998 Jun; 7(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 9627854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
    Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Retest Variability in the Medmont M700 Automated Perimeter.
    Pearce JG; Maddess T
    Optom Vis Sci; 2016 Mar; 93(3):272-80. PubMed ID: 26760578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss.
    Wall M; Doyle CK; Eden T; Zamba KD; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jun; 54(6):3975-83. PubMed ID: 23633660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli.
    Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):426-35. PubMed ID: 9040476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Frequency-doubling threshold perimetry in predicting glaucoma in a population-based study: The Beijing Eye Study.
    Wang YX; Xu L; Zhang RX; Jonas JB
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2007 Oct; 125(10):1402-6. PubMed ID: 17923550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation.
    Zhang L; Drance SM; Douglas GR
    J Glaucoma; 1997 Aug; 6(4):259-62. PubMed ID: 9264306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation.
    Asman P; Heijl A
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1992 Jun; 110(6):812-9. PubMed ID: 1596230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Increased detection rate of glaucomatous visual field damage with locally condensed grids: a comparison between fundus-oriented perimetry and conventional visual field examination.
    Schiefer U; Flad M; Stumpp F; Malsam A; Paetzold J; Vonthein R; Denk PO; Sample PA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2003 Apr; 121(4):458-65. PubMed ID: 12695242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A new index to monitor central visual field progression in glaucoma.
    de Moraes CG; Furlanetto RL; Ritch R; Liebmann JM
    Ophthalmology; 2014 Aug; 121(8):1531-8. PubMed ID: 24726202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Samuels SJ
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):413-25. PubMed ID: 9040475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects.
    Lima VC; Prata TS; De Moraes CG; Kim J; Seiple W; Rosen RB; Liebmann JM; Ritch R
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Jan; 94(1):64-7. PubMed ID: 19692366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Total deviation probability plots for stimulus size v perimetry: a comparison with size III stimuli.
    Wall M; Brito CF; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Kardon RH; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2008 Apr; 126(4):473-9. PubMed ID: 18413515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of a continuous probability scale to display visual field damage.
    Wall M; Johnson CA; Kardon RH; Crabb DP
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2009 Jun; 127(6):749-56. PubMed ID: 19506193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 20. Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry.
    Katz J; Quigley HA; Sommer A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jul; 36(8):1658-64. PubMed ID: 7601645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.