207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28444485)
1. Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters.
Hashimoto S; Matsumoto C; Eura M; Okuyama S; Shimomura Y
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2017 Jul; 61(4):299-306. PubMed ID: 28444485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry.
Bevers C; Blanckaert G; Van Keer K; Fils JF; Vandewalle E; Stalmans I
Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 97(4):e499-e505. PubMed ID: 30345638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of kinetic perimetry assessment with the Humphrey 850; an exploratory comparative study.
Rowe FJ; Hepworth LR; Hanna KL; Mistry M; Noonan CP
Eye (Lond); 2019 Dec; 33(12):1952-1960. PubMed ID: 31332292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Development of a new fully automated kinetic algorithm (program k) for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Hashimoto S; Matsumoto C; Okuyama S; Takada S; Arimura-Koike E; Shimomura Y
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2015 Mar; 56(3):2092-9. PubMed ID: 25744980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.
Wilscher S; Wabbels B; Lorenz B
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 248(10):1493-500. PubMed ID: 20232076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Application of octopus 101 GKP kinetic and static automated perimetry in the diagnosis of the primary open angle glaucoma].
Zhong Y; Shi W; Zhao P; Ai FR; Wang RY
Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao; 2007 Jun; 29(3):413-7. PubMed ID: 17633473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantification of the Visual Field Loss in Retinitis Pigmentosa Using Semi-Automated Kinetic Perimetry.
Nowomiejska K; Brzozowska A; Koss MJ; Weleber RG; Schiefer U; Rejdak K; Juenemann AG; Maciejewski R; Rejdak R
Curr Eye Res; 2016 Jul; 41(7):993-8. PubMed ID: 26470834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): evaluation of kinetic approaches in childhood neuro-ophthalmic disease.
Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS;
Br J Ophthalmol; 2019 Aug; 103(8):1085-1091. PubMed ID: 30232171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
Bhaskaran K; Phuljhele S; Kumar P; Saxena R; Angmo D; Sharma P
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):918-922. PubMed ID: 33727459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The normal age-corrected and reaction time-corrected isopter derived by semi-automated kinetic perimetry.
Vonthein R; Rauscher S; Paetzold J; Nowomiejska K; Krapp E; Hermann A; Sadowski B; Chaumette C; Wild JM; Schiefer U
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jun; 114(6):1065-72. PubMed ID: 17331580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [I have tested for you. Automated kinetic perimetry].
Chopin-Mouton D
J Fr Ophtalmol; 2006 May; 29 Spec No 2():36-9. PubMed ID: 17072220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Threshold equivalence between perimeters.
Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Alward WL; Skuta GL
Am J Ophthalmol; 1989 May; 107(5):493-505. PubMed ID: 2712132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Detection of Visual Field Loss in Pituitary Disease: Peripheral Kinetic Versus Central Static.
Rowe FJ; Cheyne CP; García-Fiñana M; Noonan CP; Howard C; Smith J; Adeoye J
Neuroophthalmology; 2015 Jun; 39(3):116-124. PubMed ID: 27928344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of quantitative testing with the Octopus, Humphrey, and Tübingen perimeters.
Mills RP; Hopp RH; Drance SM
Am J Ophthalmol; 1986 Oct; 102(4):496-504. PubMed ID: 3766667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
