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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3046588)

  • 1. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.
    Katz J; Sommer A
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1988 Sep; 106(9):1252-4. PubMed ID: 3046588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.
    Birt CM; Shin DH; Samudrala V; Hughes BA; Kim C; Lee D
    Ophthalmology; 1997 Jul; 104(7):1126-30. PubMed ID: 9224465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.
    Katz J; Sommer A
    Ophthalmology; 1990 Aug; 97(8):1032-7. PubMed ID: 2402414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Recognizing glaucomatous field loss with the Humphrey STATPAC.
    Enger C; Sommer A
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Oct; 105(10):1355-7. PubMed ID: 3662906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.
    Nelson-Quigg JM; Twelker JD; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Nov; 107(11):1612-5. PubMed ID: 2818281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.
    Katz J; Sommer A; Witt K
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 2023736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field.
    McMillan TA; Stewart WC; Hunt HH
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1992 Oct; 70(5):665-70. PubMed ID: 1471493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma.
    Bengtsson B
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2000 Oct; 78(5):519-22. PubMed ID: 11037906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry.
    Sanabria O; Feuer WJ; Anderson DR
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):76-8. PubMed ID: 2023737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effects of Mozart's music on the performance of glaucoma patients on automated perimetry.
    Shue B; Chatterjee A; Fudemberg S; Katz LJ; Moster MR; Navarro MJ; Pro M; Schmidt C; Spaeth GL; Stirbu O; Yalcin A; Myers JS
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7347-9. PubMed ID: 21828156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Aminlari A; Sassani JW
    Ophthalmology; 1993 Jan; 100(1):76-84. PubMed ID: 8433832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Yadav RK; Begum VU; Addepalli UK; Choudhari NS; Senthil S; Garudadri CS
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Jan; 133(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 25256758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating the accuracy of the visual field index for the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma.
    Talbot R; Goldberg I; Kelly P
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 156(6):1272-6. PubMed ID: 24075425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.
    Bickler-Bluth M; Trick GL; Kolker AE; Cooper DG
    Ophthalmology; 1989 May; 96(5):616-9. PubMed ID: 2748118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Katz J; Sommer A; Gaasterland DE; Anderson DR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1991 Dec; 109(12):1684-9. PubMed ID: 1841576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Johnson CA; Adams AJ; Casson EJ; Brandt JD
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1993 May; 111(5):645-50. PubMed ID: 8489447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jul; 41(8):2201-4. PubMed ID: 10892863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome.
    Lee M; Zulauf M; Caprioli J
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1994 Jun; 117(6):756-61. PubMed ID: 8198159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Raveendran S; James V; Dasari S; Palakurthy M; Reddy HB; Pradhan ZS; Rao DA; Puttaiah NK; Devi S
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reliability of the first eye and second eye in frequency doubling technology perimetry.
    Mukai S; Tsukamoto H; Iwase A; Mishima HK
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2005; 49(5):417-9. PubMed ID: 16187045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.