293 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29133651)
1. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors.
Singh MD; Jain K
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?
Szatmáry G; Biousse V; Newman NJ
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1162-73. PubMed ID: 12215089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Ophthalmology; 2002 Jun; 109(6):1052-8. PubMed ID: 12045043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Evaluation of threshold estimation and learning effect of two perimetric strategies, SITA Fast and CLIP, in damaged visual fields.
Capris P; Autuori S; Capris E; Papadia M
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 18320509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect.
Yenice O; Temel A
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(2):209-12. PubMed ID: 15812761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Detecting visual function abnormalities using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and matrix perimetry in eyes with glaucomatous appearance of the optic disc.
Sakata LM; Deleon-Ortega J; Arthur SN; Monheit BE; Girkin CA
Arch Ophthalmol; 2007 Mar; 125(3):340-5. PubMed ID: 17353404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.
Wild JM; Pacey IE; O'Neill EC; Cunliffe IA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Aug; 40(9):1998-2009. PubMed ID: 10440254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing.
Wall M; Punke SG; Stickney TL; Brito CF; Withrow KR; Kardon RH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Feb; 42(2):528-37. PubMed ID: 11157893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Three Visual Field Tests in Children: Frequency Doubling Test, 24-2 and 30-2 SITA Perimetry.
Han S; Baek SH; Kim US
Semin Ophthalmol; 2017; 32(5):647-650. PubMed ID: 27404791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of false-negative responses for full threshold and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal observers.
Johnson CA; Sherman K; Doyle C; Wall M
J Glaucoma; 2014; 23(5):288-92. PubMed ID: 23632399
[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]
