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.
103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28692736)
1. Spatial Entropy Pursuit for Fast and Accurate Perimetry Testing. Wild D; Kucur SS; Sznitman R Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Jul; 58(9):3414-3424. PubMed ID: 28692736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A new static visual field test algorithm: the Ambient Interactive ZEST (AIZE). Nomoto H; Matsumoto C; Okuyama S; Kimura S; Inoue S; Yamanaka K; Kusaka S Sci Rep; 2023 Sep; 13(1):14945. PubMed ID: 37696993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects. Chong LX; McKendrick AM; Ganeshrao SB; Turpin A Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Apr; 55(5):3265-74. PubMed ID: 24781947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Turpin A; McKendrick AM; Johnson CA; Vingrys AJ Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):4787-95. PubMed ID: 14578400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Combining perimetric suprathreshold and threshold procedures to reduce measurement variability in areas of visual field loss. McKendrick AM; Turpin A Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Jan; 82(1):43-51. PubMed ID: 15630403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Turpin A; McKendrick AM; Johnson CA; Vingrys AJ Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Mar; 43(3):709-15. PubMed ID: 11867588 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative Study Between the SORS and Dynamic Strategy Visual Field Testing Methods on Glaucomatous and Healthy Subjects. Kucur ŞS; Häckel S; Stapelfeldt J; Odermatt J; Iliev ME; Abegg M; Sznitman R; Höhn R Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2020 Dec; 9(13):3. PubMed ID: 33344047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Targeted spatial sampling using GOANNA improves detection of visual field progression. Chong LX; Turpin A; McKendrick AM Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2015 Mar; 35(2):155-69. PubMed ID: 25683867 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Flanagan JG; Wild JM; Trope GE Ophthalmology; 1993 Jun; 100(6):949-54. PubMed ID: 8510911 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Incorporating Spatial Models in Visual Field Test Procedures. Rubinstein NJ; McKendrick AM; Turpin A Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2016 Mar; 5(2):7. PubMed ID: 26981329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? Conway ML; Hosking SL; Zhu H; Cubbidge RP BMC Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 14():166. PubMed ID: 25539569 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of a variability-adjusted algorithm on the efficiency of perimetric testing. Gardiner SK Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 May; 55(5):2983-92. PubMed ID: 24713484 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Artes PH; Iwase A; Ohno Y; Kitazawa Y; Chauhan BC Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Aug; 43(8):2654-9. PubMed ID: 12147599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Advantages of terminating Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST) with dynamic criteria for white-on-white perimetry. McKendrick AM; Turpin A Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Nov; 82(11):981-7. PubMed ID: 16317375 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluating several sources of variability for standard and SWAP visual fields in glaucoma patients, suspects, and normals. Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Berry CC; Lee AC; Girkin CA; Zangwill L; Caprioli J; Weinreb RN Ophthalmology; 2003 Oct; 110(10):1895-902. PubMed ID: 14522760 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Development of a test grid using Eye Movement Perimetry for screening glaucomatous visual field defects. Kadavath Meethal NS; Mazumdar D; Asokan R; Panday M; van der Steen J; Vermeer KA; Lemij HG; George RJ; Pel JJM Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2018 Feb; 256(2):371-379. PubMed ID: 29282563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]