333 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27404791)
1. Comparison of Three Visual Field Tests in Children: Frequency Doubling Test, 24-2 and 30-2 SITA Perimetry.
Han S; Baek SH; Kim US
Semin Ophthalmol; 2017; 32(5):647-650. PubMed ID: 27404791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of visual field test results obtained through Humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry versus standard automated perimetry in healthy children.
Kocabeyoglu S; Uzun S; Mocan MC; Bozkurt B; Irkec M; Orhan M
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 61(10):576-9. PubMed ID: 24145558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [FDT versus automated standard perimetry in healthy subjects].
Chiseliţa D; Ioana MC; Danielescu C; Mihaela NM
Oftalmologia; 2006; 50(3):99-104. PubMed ID: 17144515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Conventional perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology, and visual evoked potentials in the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis.
Corallo G; Cicinelli S; Papadia M; Bandini F; Uccelli A; Calabria G
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(6):730-8. PubMed ID: 16329058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Relationship of SITA and full-threshold standard perimetry to frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma.
Boden C; Pascual J; Medeiros FA; Aihara M; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2433-9. PubMed ID: 15980232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice.
Wadood AC; Azuara-Blanco A; Aspinall P; Taguri A; King AJ
Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Mar; 133(3):327-32. PubMed ID: 11860968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Effect of cataract extraction on frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Kook MS; Yang SJ; Kim S; Chung J; Kim ST; Tchah H
Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Jul; 138(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 15234286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality.
Tafreshi A; Sample PA; Liebmann JM; Girkin CA; Zangwill LM; Weinreb RN; Lalezary M; Racette L
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Mar; 50(3):1234-40. PubMed ID: 18978349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population.
Becker K; Semes L
Optometry; 2003 Mar; 74(3):173-9. PubMed ID: 12645850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.
Sample PA; Medeiros FA; Racette L; Pascual JP; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Bowd C; Weinreb RN
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Aug; 47(8):3381-9. PubMed ID: 16877406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry.
Joson PJ; Kamantigue ME; Chen PP
Ophthalmology; 2002 Apr; 109(4):757-60. PubMed ID: 11927436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Schimiti RB; de Vasconcellos JP; Costa VP
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Jun; 84(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 16704696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison between Humphrey and frequency doubling perimetry for chiasmal visual field defects.
Noval S; Contreras I; Rebolleda G; Muñoz-Negrete FJ; Ruiz de Zárate B
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(6):739-45. PubMed ID: 16329059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Repeatability of frequency doubling technology perimetry (20-1 screening program) and the effect of pupillary dilatation on interpretation.
Parikh R; Muliyil J; George R; Bhat S; Thomas R
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2008; 15(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 18300088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
