182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2712132)
1. Threshold equivalence between perimeters.
Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Alward WL; Skuta GL
Am J Ophthalmol; 1989 May; 107(5):493-505. PubMed ID: 2712132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Calibration of the Dicon Auto Perimeter 2000 compared with that of the Goldmann perimeter.
Hart WM; Gordon MO
Am J Ophthalmol; 1983 Dec; 96(6):744-50. PubMed ID: 6660263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry.
Bevers C; Blanckaert G; Van Keer K; Fils JF; Vandewalle E; Stalmans I
Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 97(4):e499-e505. PubMed ID: 30345638
[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. Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers.
Lewis RA; Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Labermeier PK
Ophthalmology; 1986 Jul; 93(7):878-81. PubMed ID: 3763131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fluctuations on the Humphrey and Octopus perimeters.
Brenton RS; Argus WA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1987 May; 28(5):767-71. PubMed ID: 3570687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
Bass SJ; Feldman J
Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of quantitative testing with the Octopus, Humphrey, and Tübingen perimeters.
Mills RP; Hopp RH; Drance SM
Am J Ophthalmol; 1986 Oct; 102(4):496-504. PubMed ID: 3766667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of diagnostic performance and fixation control of two automated perimeters.
Asman P; Fingeret M
J Am Optom Assoc; 1997 Dec; 68(12):763-8. PubMed ID: 9635382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of Goldmann, Fieldmaster 200, and Dicon AP2000 perimeters used in a screening mode.
Mills RP
Ophthalmology; 1984 Apr; 91(4):347-54. PubMed ID: 6717919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters.
Hashimoto S; Matsumoto C; Eura M; Okuyama S; Shimomura Y
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2017 Jul; 61(4):299-306. PubMed ID: 28444485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Validation of the Iowa Head-Mounted Open-Source Perimeter.
Heinzman Z; Linton E; Marín-Franch I; Turpin A; Alawa K; Wijayagunaratne A; Wall M
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2023 Sep; 12(9):19. PubMed ID: 37747414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters.
Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham S
Br J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jun; 87(6):690-4. PubMed ID: 12770962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of kinetic perimetry assessment with the Humphrey 850; an exploratory comparative study.
Rowe FJ; Hepworth LR; Hanna KL; Mistry M; Noonan CP
Eye (Lond); 2019 Dec; 33(12):1952-1960. PubMed ID: 31332292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
Bhaskaran K; Phuljhele S; Kumar P; Saxena R; Angmo D; Sharma P
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):918-922. PubMed ID: 33727459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Learning effect and repeatability of automated kinetic perimetry in healthy participants.
Hirasawa K; Shoji N
Curr Eye Res; 2014 Sep; 39(9):928-37. PubMed ID: 24588228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Uniocular and binocular fields of rotation measures: Octopus versus Goldmann.
Rowe FJ; Hanif S
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 249(6):909-19. PubMed ID: 21243371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
