219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27829104)
21. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss.
Nowomiejska K; Vonthein R; Paetzold J; Zagorski Z; Kardon R; Schiefer U
Ophthalmology; 2005 Aug; 112(8):1343-54. PubMed ID: 15996734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The application of chromatic dark-adapted kinetic perimetry to retinal diseases.
Rotenstreich Y; Fishman GA; Lindeman M; Alexander KR
Ophthalmology; 2004 Jun; 111(6):1222-7. PubMed ID: 15177975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Peripheral visual field testing in glaucoma by automated kinetic perimetry with the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Ballon BJ; Echelman DA; Shields MB; Ollie AR
Arch Ophthalmol; 1992 Dec; 110(12):1730-2. PubMed ID: 1463413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann kinetic visual fields.
Rowe FJ; Rowlands A
Biomed Res Int; 2014; 2014():214829. PubMed ID: 24587983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluation of stimulus velocity in automated kinetic perimetry in young healthy participants.
Hirasawa K; Shoji N; Okada A; Takano K; Tomioka S
Vision Res; 2014 May; 98():83-8. PubMed ID: 24705075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Adaptation mechanisms, eccentricity profiles, and clinical implementation of red-on-white perimetry.
Zele AJ; Dang TM; O'Loughlin RK; Guymer RH; Harper A; Vingrys AJ
Optom Vis Sci; 2008 May; 85(5):309-17. PubMed ID: 18451735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry.
Agarwal HC; Gulati V; Sihota R
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Dec; 48(4):301-6. PubMed ID: 11340889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluating the visual field effects of blepharoptosis using automated static perimetry.
Meyer DR; Stern JH; Jarvis JM; Lininger LL
Ophthalmology; 1993 May; 100(5):651-8; discussion 658-9. PubMed ID: 8493006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Temporal and spatial response properties of optic neuritis patients manifesting statokinetic dissociation.
Casson EJ; Osako M; Johnson CA; Hwang P
Appl Opt; 1991 Jun; 30(16):2136-42. PubMed ID: 20700188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of tangent screen, goldmann, and humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions.
Wong AM; Sharpe JA
Ophthalmology; 2000 Mar; 107(3):527-44. PubMed ID: 10711892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma.
Pineles SL; Volpe NJ; Miller-Ellis E; Galetta SL; Sankar PS; Shindler KS; Maguire MG
Arch Ophthalmol; 2006 Mar; 124(3):363-9. PubMed ID: 16534056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma.
Mönter VM; Crabb DP; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Feb; 58(2):868-875. PubMed ID: 28159974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma].
Nowomiejska K; Paetzold J; Krapp E; Rejdak R; Zagórski Z; Schiefer U
Klin Oczna; 2004; 106(1-2 Suppl):231-3. PubMed ID: 15510509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): Feasibility, Reliability and Repeatability of Perimetry in Children.
Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Rahi JS;
PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130895. PubMed ID: 26091102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The relationship of visual threshold and reaction time to visual field eccentricity with conventional automated perimetry.
Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
Vision Res; 2002 Mar; 42(6):781-7. PubMed ID: 11888543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Reaction time in automated kinetic perimetry: effects of stimulus luminance, eccentricity, and movement direction.
Schiefer U; Strasburger H; Becker ST; Vonthein R; Schiller J; Dietrich TJ; Hart W
Vision Res; 2001 Jul; 41(16):2157-64. PubMed ID: 11403799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Pattern Recognition Analysis Reveals Unique Contrast Sensitivity Isocontours Using Static Perimetry Thresholds Across the Visual Field.
Phu J; Khuu SK; Nivison-Smith L; Zangerl B; Choi AYJ; Jones BW; Pfeiffer RL; Marc RE; Kalloniatis M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Sep; 58(11):4863-4876. PubMed ID: 28973333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Automated perimetry: background, instruments and methods.
Portney GL; Krohn MA
Surv Ophthalmol; 1978; 22(4):271-8. PubMed ID: 635771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
