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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2712132)

  • 21. A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields.
    Riemann CD; Hanson S; Foster JA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Jan; 118(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 10636416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The influence of decreased retinal illumination on automated perimetric threshold measurements.
    Heuer DK; Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Gressel MG
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1989 Dec; 108(6):643-50. PubMed ID: 2596543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Quantitative office perimetry.
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Lewis RA
    Ophthalmology; 1985 Jul; 92(7):862-72. PubMed ID: 4022569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
    Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
    Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comparison of visual field sensitivities between the Medmont automated perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser.
    Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham SL
    Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Apr; 38(3):273-6. PubMed ID: 20447123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Inter- and intraindividual sensitivity variations with manual and automated static perimeters.
    Sucs FE; Verriest G
    Ophthalmologica; 1987; 195(4):209-14. PubMed ID: 3431819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold.
    Midena E; Radin PP; Convento E; Cavarzeran F
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2007; 17(1):63-8. PubMed ID: 17294384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defects.
    Heijl A; Drance SM
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1981 May; 99(5):832-6. PubMed ID: 7236085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.
    Trope GE; Britton R
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1987 Jul; 71(7):489-93. PubMed ID: 3307897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical experiences with the use of an automated perimeter (Octopus) in the diagnosis and management of patients with glaucoma and neurologic diseases.
    Li SG; Spaeth GL; Scimeca HA; Schatz NJ; Savino PJ
    Ophthalmology; 1979 Jul; 86(7):1302-16. PubMed ID: 233862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Learning effect in automatic static perimetry with Dicon TKS 4000 computed perimeter.
    Konareva-Kostianeva M; Atanassov M
    Folia Med (Plovdiv); 1998; 40(3B Suppl 3):34-7. PubMed ID: 10205990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The effect of stimulus size on the measured threshold values in automated perimetry.
    Choplin NT; Sherwood MB; Spaeth GL
    Ophthalmology; 1990 Mar; 97(3):371-4. PubMed ID: 2336276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Matched comparison of Goldmann perimetry and automated two-zone suprathreshold Dicon perimetry in open-angle glaucoma.
    Levy NS; Ellis E
    Ann Ophthalmol; 1985 Apr; 17(4):245-9. PubMed ID: 4004003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA.
    Fredette MJ; Giguère A; Anderson DR; Budenz DL; McSoley J
    Optom Vis Sci; 2015 May; 92(5):527-36. PubMed ID: 25875683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The normal visual field on the Humphrey field analyzer.
    Brenton RS; Phelps CD
    Ophthalmologica; 1986; 193(1-2):56-74. PubMed ID: 3822395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of Visual Field Measurement with Heidelberg Edge Perimeter and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in Patients with Ocular Hypertension.
    Kaczorowski K; Mulak M; Szumny D; Baranowska M; Jakubaszko-Jabłońska J; Misiuk-Hojło M
    Adv Clin Exp Med; 2016; 25(5):937-944. PubMed ID: 28028959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Raveendran S; James V; Dasari S; Palakurthy M; Reddy HB; Pradhan ZS; Rao DA; Puttaiah NK; Devi S
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): Normative Visual Field Values in Children.
    Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS;
    Ophthalmology; 2015 Aug; 122(8):1711-7. PubMed ID: 26072348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Static threshold asymmetry in early glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Feuer WJ; Anderson DR
    Ophthalmology; 1989 Sep; 96(9):1285-97. PubMed ID: 2779996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.