347 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29356822)
1. The Effective Dynamic Ranges for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression With Standard Automated Perimetry and Stimulus Sizes III and V.
Wall M; Zamba GKD; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2018 Jan; 59(1):439-445. PubMed ID: 29356822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry.
Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Feb; 50(2):974-9. PubMed ID: 18952921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry.
Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Zamba G
Arch Ophthalmol; 2010 May; 128(5):570-6. PubMed ID: 20457977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Can Home Monitoring Allow Earlier Detection of Rapid Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma?
Anderson AJ; Bedggood PA; George Kong YX; Martin KR; Vingrys AJ
Ophthalmology; 2017 Dec; 124(12):1735-1742. PubMed ID: 28764889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Early Detection of Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression Using Pointwise Linear Regression With Binomial Test in the Central 10 Degrees.
Asano S; Murata H; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Asaoka R
Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Mar; 199():140-149. PubMed ID: 30465746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli.
Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):426-35. PubMed ID: 9040476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Progression of visual field in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma - ProgF study 1.
Aptel F; Aryal-Charles N; Giraud JM; El Chehab H; Delbarre M; Chiquet C; Romanet JP; Renard JP
Acta Ophthalmol; 2015 Dec; 93(8):e615-20. PubMed ID: 26095771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Spatial and temporal processing of threshold data for detection of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss.
Spry PG; Johnson CA; Bates AB; Turpin A; Chauhan BC
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Feb; 120(2):173-80. PubMed ID: 11831919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Natural history of open-angle glaucoma.
Heijl A; Bengtsson B; Hyman L; Leske MC;
Ophthalmology; 2009 Dec; 116(12):2271-6. PubMed ID: 19854514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Flicker-defined form perimetry in glaucoma patients.
Horn FK; Kremers J; Mardin CY; Jünemann AG; Adler W; Tornow RP
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 253(3):447-55. PubMed ID: 25511293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in healthy controls.
Redmond T; O'Leary N; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; Artes PH; Chauhan BC
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 131(12):1565-72. PubMed ID: 24177807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Correlation between high-pass resolution perimetry and standard threshold perimetry in subjects with glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
Iester M; Capris P; Altieri M; Zingirian M; Traverso CE
Int Ophthalmol; 1999; 23(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 11196128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
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. 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]
19. Comparison of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and full threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field loss.
Aoki Y; Takahashi G; Kitahara K
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2007; 17(2):196-202. PubMed ID: 17415692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Validating the efficacy of the binomial pointwise linear regression method to detect glaucoma progression with multicentral database.
Asano S; Murata H; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Miki A; Tanito M; Mizoue S; Mori K; Suzuki K; Yamashita T; Kashiwagi K; Shoji N; Zangwill LM; Asaoka R
Br J Ophthalmol; 2020 Apr; 104(4):569-574. PubMed ID: 31272952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
