314 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31567907)
21. Evaluation of VEP perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
Bengtsson B
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2002 Dec; 80(6):620-6. PubMed ID: 12485283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Correlation between static automated and scanning laser entoptic perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
Plummer DJ; Lopez A; Azen SP; LaBree L; Bartsch DU; Sadun AA; Freeman WR
Ophthalmology; 2000 Sep; 107(9):1693-701. PubMed ID: 10964832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients.
Horn FK; Wakili N; Jünemann AM; Korth M
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 240(8):658-65. PubMed ID: 12192460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. 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]
29. Comparison of Quality and Output of Different Optimal Perimetric Testing Approaches in Children With Glaucoma.
Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Brookes J; Papadopoulos M; Khaw PT; Viswanathan AC; Garway-Heath D; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS;
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Feb; 136(2):155-161. PubMed ID: 29285534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Objective perimetry in glaucoma.
Klistorner A; Graham SL
Ophthalmology; 2000 Dec; 107(12):2283-99. PubMed ID: 11097611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A new pattern electroretinogram paradigm evaluated in terms of user friendliness and agreement with perimetry.
Yang A; Swanson WH
Ophthalmology; 2007 Apr; 114(4):671-9. PubMed ID: 17398319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients.
Hirasawa K; Takahashi N; Satou T; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N
Curr Eye Res; 2017 Aug; 42(8):1160-1168. PubMed ID: 28441081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Automated Perimetry and Visual Dysfunction in Blast-Related Traumatic Brain Injury.
Lemke S; Cockerham GC; Glynn-Milley C; Lin R; Cockerham KP
Ophthalmology; 2016 Feb; 123(2):415-424. PubMed ID: 26581554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Validation of a Head-mounted Virtual Reality Visual Field Screening Device.
Mees L; Upadhyaya S; Kumar P; Kotawala S; Haran S; Rajasekar S; Friedman DS; Venkatesh R
J Glaucoma; 2020 Feb; 29(2):86-91. PubMed ID: 31790067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage.
Gardiner SK; Swanson WH; Goren D; Mansberger SL; Demirel S
Ophthalmology; 2014 Jul; 121(7):1359-69. PubMed ID: 24629617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
