347 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29356822)
21. Monitoring glaucomatous visual field progression: the effect of a novel spatial filter.
Strouthidis NG; Scott A; Viswanathan AC; Crabb DP; Garway-Heath DF
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Jan; 48(1):251-7. PubMed ID: 17197540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects.
Bosworth CF; Sample PA; Gupta N; Bathija R; Weinreb RN
Arch Ophthalmol; 1998 Sep; 116(9):1153-8. PubMed ID: 9747672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients.
Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Zangwill L; Lee AC; Kono Y; Weinreb RN
Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 10704545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Threshold Automated Perimetry of the Full Visual Field in Patients With Glaucoma With Mild Visual Loss.
Wall M; Lee EJ; Wanzek RJ; Zamba KD; Turpin A; Chong LX; Marin-Franch I
J Glaucoma; 2019 Nov; 28(11):997-1005. PubMed ID: 31567907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. Diffuse glaucomatous structural and functional damage in the hemifield without significant pattern loss.
Grewal DS; Sehi M; Greenfield DS
Arch Ophthalmol; 2009 Nov; 127(11):1442-8. PubMed ID: 19901209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Delgado MF; Nguyen NT; Cox TA; Singh K; Lee DA; Dueker DK; Fechtner RD; Juzych MS; Lin SC; Netland PA; Pastor SA; Schuman JS; Samples JR;
Ophthalmology; 2002 Dec; 109(12):2362-74. PubMed ID: 12466186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls.
Chauhan BC; House PH; McCormick TA; LeBlanc RP
Arch Ophthalmol; 1999 Jan; 117(1):24-33. PubMed ID: 9930157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Frequency of Testing to Detect Visual Field Progression Derived Using a Longitudinal Cohort of Glaucoma Patients.
Wu Z; Saunders LJ; Daga FB; Diniz-Filho A; Medeiros FA
Ophthalmology; 2017 Jun; 124(6):786-792. PubMed ID: 28268099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The Effect of Limiting the Range of Perimetric Sensitivities on Pointwise Assessment of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma.
Gardiner SK; Swanson WH; Demirel S
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Jan; 57(1):288-94. PubMed ID: 26824408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Relationship between Humphrey 30-2 SITA Standard Test, Matrix 30-2 threshold test, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients.
Bozkurt B; Yilmaz PT; Irkec M
J Glaucoma; 2008; 17(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 18414106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Different value scales between frequency-doubling technique and standard threshold perimetry.
Iester M; Traverso CE; Capris P; Vittone P; Zingirian M
Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl; 2000; (232):26-7. PubMed ID: 11235519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Pointwise linear regression analysis for detection of visual field progression with absolute versus corrected threshold sensitivities.
Manassakorn A; Nouri-Mahdavi K; Koucheki B; Law SK; Caprioli J
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Jul; 47(7):2896-903. PubMed ID: 16799031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Blue-on-yellow visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer in ocular hypertension and glaucoma.
Teesalu P; Airaksinen PJ; Tuulonen A
Ophthalmology; 1998 Nov; 105(11):2077-81. PubMed ID: 9818609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses.
Artes PH; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Dec; 46(12):4600-6. PubMed ID: 16303955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.
Sample PA; Medeiros FA; Racette L; Pascual JP; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Bowd C; Weinreb RN
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Aug; 47(8):3381-9. PubMed ID: 16877406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Is visual field evaluation using multiple correlations and linear regressions useful? An evaluation of Delphi perimetry.
Wishart PK; Wardrop DR; Kosmin AS
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1998 Jul; 236(7):493-500. PubMed ID: 9672794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Learning effect and test-retest variability of pulsar perimetry.
Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Parisi L; Johnson CA; Sampaolesi R; Brusini P
J Glaucoma; 2013 Mar; 22(3):230-7. PubMed ID: 22027935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
