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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30029253)

  • 1. Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field.
    Gardiner SK
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2018 Jul; 59(8):3667-3674. PubMed ID: 30029253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of Goldmann III, V and spatially equated test stimuli in visual field testing: the importance of complete and partial spatial summation.
    Phu J; Khuu SK; Zangerl B; Kalloniatis M
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2017 Mar; 37(2):160-176. PubMed ID: 28211185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Evaluation of a two-stage neural model of glaucomatous defect: an approach to reduce test-retest variability.
    Pan F; Swanson WH; Dul MW
    Optom Vis Sci; 2006 Jul; 83(7):499-511. PubMed ID: 16840874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Thresholds and variability of retinal light sensitivity in each point of the examined visual field].
    Vitkov AA; Antonov AA; Asinovskova II; Kozlova IV; Semenov ED
    Vestn Oftalmol; 2024; 140(2. Vyp. 2):116-122. PubMed ID: 38739140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Mapping of glaucomatous visual field defects by multifocal VEPs.
    Hasegawa S; Abe H
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Dec; 42(13):3341-8. PubMed ID: 11726643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Persistence, spatial distribution and implications for progression detection of blind parts of the visual field in glaucoma: a clinical cohort study.
    Junoy Montolio FG; Wesselink C; Jansonius NM
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(7):e41211. PubMed ID: 22848446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma.
    Smith SD; Katz J; Quigley HA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1996 Jun; 37(7):1419-28. PubMed ID: 8641844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Continuous light increment perimetry compared to full threshold strategy in glaucoma.
    Wabbels BK; Diehm S; Kolling G
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005; 15(6):722-9. PubMed ID: 16329057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Detecting early glaucomatous field defects with the size I stimulus and Statpac.
    Zalta AH; Burchfield JC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1990 May; 74(5):289-93. PubMed ID: 2354137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The relationship of visual threshold and reaction time to visual field eccentricity with conventional automated perimetry.
    Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
    Vision Res; 2002 Mar; 42(6):781-7. PubMed ID: 11888543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A comparison of the OKP visual field screening test with the Humphrey field analyser.
    Vernon SA; Quigley HA
    Eye (Lond); 1992; 6 ( Pt 5)():521-4. PubMed ID: 1286719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quantitative analysis of light sensitivities in central 30-degree visual field of normal Chinese and glaucoma patients.
    Li Y; Wu Z; Jiang Y
    Chin Med J (Engl); 1997 Feb; 110(2):129-33. PubMed ID: 9594284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Scaling the structure--function relationship for clinical perimetry.
    Harwerth RS; Carter-Dawson L; Smith EL; Crawford ML
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Aug; 83(4):448-55. PubMed ID: 16029269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Association between scanning laser polarimetry measurements using variable corneal polarization compensation and visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes.
    Bowd C; Zangwill LM; Weinreb RN
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2003 Jul; 121(7):961-6. PubMed ID: 12860798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of simulated cataract on the glaucomatous visual field.
    Budenz DL; Feuer WJ; Anderson DR
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Apr; 100(4):511-7. PubMed ID: 8479709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.