147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32155202)
61. Comparison of the original Amsler grid with the modified Amsler grid: result for patients with age-related macular degeneration.
Augustin AJ; Offermann I; Lutz J; Schmidt-Erfurth U; Tornambe P
Retina; 2005 Jun; 25(4):443-5. PubMed ID: 15933590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. What is the most suitable grid for computer perimetry in glaucoma patients?
Weber J; Dobek K
Ophthalmologica; 1986; 192(2):88-96. PubMed ID: 3703484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Structure-Function Relationship between Flicker-Defined Form Perimetry and Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Glaucoma Suspects.
Reznicek L; Muth D; Vogel M; Hirneiß C
Curr Eye Res; 2017 Mar; 42(3):418-423. PubMed ID: 27419859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.
Goukon H; Hirasawa K; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N
PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0224711. PubMed ID: 31697732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Comparison of Visual Field Progression Rates Among the High Tension Glaucoma, Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma, and Normal Tension Glaucoma.
Ballae Ganeshrao S; Senthil S; Choudhari N; Sri Durgam S; Garudadri CS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2019 Mar; 60(4):889-900. PubMed ID: 30835290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Association Between Undetected 10-2 Visual Field Damage and Vision-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Glaucoma.
Blumberg DM; De Moraes CG; Prager AJ; Yu Q; Al-Aswad L; Cioffi GA; Liebmann JM; Hood DC
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2017 Jul; 135(7):742-747. PubMed ID: 28542692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Patients have two eyes!: binocular versus better eye visual field indices.
Asaoka R; Crabb DP; Yamashita T; Russell RA; Wang YX; Garway-Heath DF
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(9):7007-11. PubMed ID: 21810985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. The Impact of Visual Field Clusters on Performance-based Measures and Vision-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Glaucoma.
Sun Y; Lin C; Waisbourd M; Ekici F; Erdem E; Wizov SS; Hark LA; Spaeth GL
Am J Ophthalmol; 2016 Mar; 163():45-52. PubMed ID: 26701273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Comparison of matrix frequency-doubling technology perimetry and standard automated perimetry in monitoring the development of visual field defects for glaucoma suspect eyes.
Hu R; Wang C; Racette L
PLoS One; 2017; 12(5):e0178079. PubMed ID: 28542536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Scanning laser polarimetry of the retinal nerve fiber layer in perimetrically unaffected eyes of glaucoma patients.
Reus NJ; Lemij HG
Ophthalmology; 2004 Dec; 111(12):2199-203. PubMed ID: 15582074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Regional correlation of structure and function in glaucoma, using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, and visual fields.
Danesh-Meyer HV; Ku JY; Papchenko TL; Jayasundera T; Hsiang JC; Gamble GD
Ophthalmology; 2006 Apr; 113(4):603-11. PubMed ID: 16483660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. How Many Visual Fields Are Required to Precisely Predict Future Test Results in Glaucoma Patients When Using Different Trend Analyses?
Taketani Y; Murata H; Fujino Y; Mayama C; Asaoka R
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2015 Jun; 56(6):4076-82. PubMed ID: 26114484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Glaucoma detection with matrix and standard achromatic perimetry.
Burgansky-Eliash Z; Wollstein G; Patel A; Bilonick RA; Ishikawa H; Kagemann L; Dilworth WD; Schuman JS
Br J Ophthalmol; 2007 Jul; 91(7):933-8. PubMed ID: 17215267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?
Szatmáry G; Biousse V; Newman NJ
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1162-73. PubMed ID: 12215089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. 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]
76. 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]
77. Visual field and intraocular pressure asymmetry in the low-pressure glaucoma treatment study.
Greenfield DS; Liebmann JM; Ritch R; Krupin T;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Mar; 114(3):460-5. PubMed ID: 17141318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry.
Wall M; Doyle CK; Zamba KD; Artes P; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Feb; 54(2):1345-51. PubMed ID: 23341012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Threshold Amsler grid testing in diabetic retinopathy.
Wolfe KA; Sadun AA
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1991; 229(3):219-23. PubMed ID: 1869055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1999 Apr; 77(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 10321527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
