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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31470001)

  • 1. Clinical Evaluation of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Faster Compared With Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Standard in Normal Subjects, Glaucoma Suspects, and Patients With Glaucoma.
    Phu J; Khuu SK; Agar A; Kalloniatis M
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Dec; 208():251-264. PubMed ID: 31470001
    [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. A Comparison of the Visual Field Parameters of SITA Faster and SITA Standard Strategies in Glaucoma.
    Lavanya R; Riyazuddin M; Dasari S; Puttaiah NK; Venugopal JP; Pradhan ZS; Devi S; Sreenivasaiah S; Ganeshrao SB; Rao HL
    J Glaucoma; 2020 Sep; 29(9):783-788. PubMed ID: 32459685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Strategy for Seeding Point Error Assessment for Retesting (SPEAR) in Perimetry Applied to Normal Subjects, Glaucoma Suspects, and Patients With Glaucoma.
    Phu J; Kalloniatis M
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2021 Jan; 221():115-130. PubMed ID: 32777379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 24-2 SITA Standard versus 24-2 SITA Faster in Perimetry-Naive Normal Subjects.
    Costa VP; Zangalli CS; Jammal AA; Medeiros FA; Miyazaki JVMK; Perez V; Nardi Boscaroli ML; Schimiti RB
    Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2023; 6(2):129-136. PubMed ID: 35985477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Comparison between the Compass Fundus Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Montesano G; Bryan SR; Crabb DP; Fogagnolo P; Oddone F; McKendrick AM; Turpin A; Lanzetta P; Perdicchi A; Johnson CA; Garway-Heath DF; Brusini P; Rossetti LM
    Ophthalmology; 2019 Feb; 126(2):242-251. PubMed ID: 30114416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.
    Heijl A; Patella VM; Chong LX; Iwase A; Leung CK; Tuulonen A; Lee GC; Callan T; Bengtsson B
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Feb; 198():154-165. PubMed ID: 30336129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
    Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
    Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of the Humphrey swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies.
    Sharma AK; Goldberg I; Graham SL; Mohsin M
    J Glaucoma; 2000 Feb; 9(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10708227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
    Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
    Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing.
    Sekhar GC; Naduvilath TJ; Lakkai M; Jayakumar AJ; Pandi GT; Mandal AK; Honavar SG
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Jul; 107(7):1303-8. PubMed ID: 10889102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.
    Bourne RR; Jahanbakhsh K; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Hoffmann EM; Medeiros FA; Weinreb RN; Sample PA
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Dec; 144(6):908-913. PubMed ID: 17919445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The Effect of Transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on Visual Field Performance.
    Pham AT; Ramulu PY; Boland MV; Yohannan J
    Ophthalmology; 2021 Oct; 128(10):1417-1425. PubMed ID: 33798655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Relationship between Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Vessel Density and Severity of Visual Field Loss in Glaucoma.
    Yarmohammadi A; Zangwill LM; Diniz-Filho A; Suh MH; Yousefi S; Saunders LJ; Belghith A; Manalastas PI; Medeiros FA; Weinreb RN
    Ophthalmology; 2016 Dec; 123(12):2498-2508. PubMed ID: 27726964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry.
    Kumagai T; Shoji T; Yoshikawa Y; Mine I; Kanno J; Ishii H; Saito A; Ishikawa S; Kimura I; Shinoda K
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2020 Nov; 104(11):1258-1534. PubMed ID: 32152139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.