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.
264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28976067)
1. 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]
2. Six-month Longitudinal Comparison of a Portable Tablet Perimeter With the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Prea SM; Kong YXG; Mehta A; He M; Crowston JG; Gupta V; Martin KR; Vingrys AJ Am J Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; 190():9-16. PubMed ID: 29550190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Measuring Visual Fields in Children With Glaucoma Using a Portable Tablet. Gupta V; Kong GXY; Singh A; Panigrahi A; Gupta S; Prea S; Vingrys AJ Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2024 May; 13(5):10. PubMed ID: 38743410 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Performance of an iPad Application to Detect Moderate and Advanced Visual Field Loss in Nepal. Johnson CA; Thapa S; George Kong YX; Robin AL Am J Ophthalmol; 2017 Oct; 182():147-154. PubMed ID: 28844641 [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. Comparison of 24-2 Faster, Fast, and Standard Programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for Perimetry in Patients With Manifest and Suspect Glaucoma. Thulasidas M; Patyal S J Glaucoma; 2020 Nov; 29(11):1070-1076. PubMed ID: 32890104 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reproducibility in the global indices for multifocal visual evoked potentials and Humphrey visual fields in controls and glaucomatous eyes within a 2-year period. Inoue Y; Kato K; Kamata S; Ishikawa K; Nakamura M Doc Ophthalmol; 2015 Oct; 131(2):115-24. PubMed ID: 26078041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The performance of iPad-based noise-field perimeter versus Humphrey Field Analyser in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Ding J; Tecson IC; Ang BCH; Chiew W; Chua C; Yip LWL Eye (Lond); 2022 Apr; 36(4):800-811. PubMed ID: 33879855 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients. Kumar H; Thulasidas M J Ophthalmol; 2020; 2020():8384509. PubMed ID: 32908686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Quantification and Predictors of Visual Field Variability in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucomatous Eyes Using SITA-Faster. Tan JCK; Agar A; Kalloniatis M; Phu J Ophthalmology; 2024 Jun; 131(6):658-666. PubMed ID: 38110124 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Glaucoma Screening Using an iPad-Based Visual Field Test in a West African Population. Prince J; Thompson A; Mwanza JC; Tolleson-Rinehart S; Budenz DL Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2022; 5(3):275-283. PubMed ID: 34537412 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2C Test Grids for Identifying Central Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Suspect Patients. Phu J; Kalloniatis M Ophthalmology; 2021 Oct; 128(10):1405-1416. PubMed ID: 33722636 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Can Visual Field Progression be Predicted by Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopic Imaging of the Optic Nerve Head in Glaucoma? (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis). Danias J; Serle J Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2015; 113():T4. PubMed ID: 26549913 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of Test Strategy on Octopus Perimeter Cluster Mean Defect Values: Adaptive Bracketing Normal Strategy Versus Tendency-oriented Perimetry. Holló G J Glaucoma; 2016 Oct; 25(10):830-834. PubMed ID: 27300642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Structure-Function Relationship between Flicker-Defined Form Perimetry and Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Glaucoma Suspects. Reznicek L; Muth D; Vogel M; Hirneiß C Curr Eye Res; 2017 Mar; 42(3):418-423. PubMed ID: 27419859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of virtual reality game-based automated perimetry in patients with childhood glaucoma. Wang B; Alvarez-Falcón S; El-Dairi M; Freedman SF J AAPOS; 2023 Dec; 27(6):325.e1-325.e6. PubMed ID: 38597674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma. Leeprechanon N; Giaconi JA; Manassakorn A; Hoffman D; Caprioli J Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):931-7. PubMed ID: 17397926 [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. 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] [Next] [New Search]