237 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26279004)
1. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer.
Hirasawa K; Shoji N
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing.
Wall M; Punke SG; Stickney TL; Brito CF; Withrow KR; Kardon RH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Feb; 42(2):528-37. PubMed ID: 11157893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; O'Neill EC; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Aug; 40(9):1998-2009. PubMed ID: 10440254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors.
Singh MD; Jain K
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect.
Yenice O; Temel A
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(2):209-12. PubMed ID: 15812761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and full threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field loss.
Aoki Y; Takahashi G; Kitahara K
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2007; 17(2):196-202. PubMed ID: 17415692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of 24-2 Faster, Fast, and Standard Programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for Perimetry in Patients With Manifest and Suspect Glaucoma.
Thulasidas M; Patyal S
J Glaucoma; 2020 Nov; 29(11):1070-1076. PubMed ID: 32890104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
Conway ML; Hosking SL; Zhu H; Cubbidge RP
BMC Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 14():166. PubMed ID: 25539569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma.
Liu S; Lam S; Weinreb RN; Ye C; Cheung CY; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7325-31. PubMed ID: 21810975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.
Bourne RR; Jahanbakhsh K; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Hoffmann EM; Medeiros FA; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Dec; 144(6):908-913. PubMed ID: 17919445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; Hancock SA; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 May; 40(6):1152-61. PubMed ID: 10235548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?
Szatmáry G; Biousse V; Newman NJ
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1162-73. PubMed ID: 12215089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
