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.
456 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28441081)
1. Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients. Hirasawa K; Takahashi N; Satou T; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N Curr Eye Res; 2017 Aug; 42(8):1160-1168. PubMed ID: 28441081 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of size modulation and conventional standard automated perimetry with the 24-2 test protocol in glaucoma patients. Hirasawa K; Shoji N; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shimizu K Sci Rep; 2016 May; 6():25563. PubMed ID: 27149561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of Quality and Output of Different Optimal Perimetric Testing Approaches in Children With Glaucoma. Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Brookes J; Papadopoulos M; Khaw PT; Viswanathan AC; Garway-Heath D; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS; JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Feb; 136(2):155-161. PubMed ID: 29285534 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Delgado MF; Nguyen NT; Cox TA; Singh K; Lee DA; Dueker DK; Fechtner RD; Juzych MS; Lin SC; Netland PA; Pastor SA; Schuman JS; Samples JR; Ophthalmology; 2002 Dec; 109(12):2362-74. PubMed ID: 12466186 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Octopus 900 Automated Kinetic Perimetry versus Standard Automated Static Perimetry in Glaucoma Practice. Rowe FJ; Czanner G; Somerville T; Sood I; Sood D Curr Eye Res; 2021 Jan; 46(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 32564629 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry. Morales J; Weitzman ML; González de la Rosa M Ophthalmology; 2000 Jan; 107(1):134-42. PubMed ID: 10647732 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs. Bengtsson B; Heijl A Ophthalmology; 2006 Jul; 113(7):1092-7. PubMed ID: 16815399 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes. Maeda H; Nakaura M; Negi A Eye (Lond); 2000 Oct; 14 Pt 5():747-51. PubMed ID: 11116697 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry. Wall M; Doyle CK; Zamba KD; Artes P; Johnson CA Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Feb; 54(2):1345-51. PubMed ID: 23341012 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss. Wall M; Doyle CK; Eden T; Zamba KD; Johnson CA Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jun; 54(6):3975-83. PubMed ID: 23633660 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer. Hirasawa K; Shoji N Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of learning effect on reliability parameters and global indices of standard automated perimetry in cases of primary open angle glaucoma. Tiwari US; Aishwarya A; Bhale A Rom J Ophthalmol; 2018; 62(4):277-281. PubMed ID: 30891523 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Perimetry with normal Octopus technique and Weber 'dynamic' technique. Initial results with reference to reproducibility of measurements in glaucoma patients]. Zulauf M; Fehlmann P; Flammer J Ophthalmologe; 1996 Aug; 93(4):420-7. PubMed ID: 8963141 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Performance of iPad-based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls. Schulz AM; Graham EC; You Y; Klistorner A; Graham SL Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2018 May; 46(4):346-355. PubMed ID: 28976067 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]