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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2748118)

  • 1. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.
    Bickler-Bluth M; Trick GL; Kolker AE; Cooper DG
    Ophthalmology; 1989 May; 96(5):616-9. PubMed ID: 2748118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.
    Birt CM; Shin DH; Samudrala V; Hughes BA; Kim C; Lee D
    Ophthalmology; 1997 Jul; 104(7):1126-30. PubMed ID: 9224465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.
    Katz J; Sommer A; Witt K
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 2023736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Aminlari A; Sassani JW
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Jan; 100(1):76-84. PubMed ID: 8433832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field.
    McMillan TA; Stewart WC; Hunt HH
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Oct; 70(5):665-70. PubMed ID: 1471493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma.
    Bengtsson B
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2000 Oct; 78(5):519-22. PubMed ID: 11037906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.
    Katz J; Sommer A
    Ophthalmology; 1990 Aug; 97(8):1032-7. PubMed ID: 2402414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Yadav RK; Begum VU; Addepalli UK; Choudhari NS; Senthil S; Garudadri CS
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Jan; 133(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 25256758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Baseline visual field characteristics in the ocular hypertension treatment study.
    Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Cello KE; Edwards M; Kass MA; Gordon MO; Budenz DL; Gaasterland DE; Werner E;
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Mar; 109(3):432-7. PubMed ID: 11874743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Nelson-Quigg JM
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Feb; 100(2):269-74. PubMed ID: 8437837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.
    Nelson-Quigg JM; Twelker JD; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Nov; 107(11):1612-5. PubMed ID: 2818281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season.
    Junoy Montolio FG; Wesselink C; Gordijn M; Jansonius NM
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Oct; 53(11):7010-7. PubMed ID: 22952121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.
    Katz J; Sommer A
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1988 Sep; 106(9):1252-4. PubMed ID: 3046588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry.
    Sanabria O; Feuer WJ; Anderson DR
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):76-8. PubMed ID: 2023737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing.
    Kramer BC; Musch DC; Niziol LM; Weizer JS
    Ophthalmology; 2012 Feb; 119(2):304-7. PubMed ID: 22115714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
    Wild JM; Kim LS; Pacey IE; Cunliffe IA
    Ophthalmology; 2006 Feb; 113(2):206-15. PubMed ID: 16458091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group.
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Quigg JM; Cello KE; Kass MA; Gordon MO
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Sep; 118(9):1187-94. PubMed ID: 10980763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The ability of healthy volunteers to simulate a neurologic field defect on automated perimetry.
    Ghate D; Bodnarchuk B; Sanders S; Deokule S; Kedar S
    Ophthalmology; 2014 Mar; 121(3):759-62. PubMed ID: 24314835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects.
    Cascairo MA; Stewart WC; Sutherland SE
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1991; 229(5):437-41. PubMed ID: 1937076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.