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.
3. [Comparative effectiveness of modified selective perimetry in the early detection of visual field changes in glaucoma]. Sabaeva GF; Nemtseev GI Vestn Oftalmol; 1986; 102(3):69-71. PubMed ID: 3727256 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Feasibility and outcome of automated static perimetry in children using continuous light increment perimetry (CLIP) and fast threshold strategy. Wabbels BK; Wilscher S Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Dec; 83(6):664-9. PubMed ID: 16396642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Poly-static quantitative perimetry for detection of open angle glaucoma]. Lai Z; Lao Y; Ai F Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2000 Mar; 36(2):129-30. PubMed ID: 11853601 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Visual evoked potentials and static perimetry in functional visual deficits]. Sobolewski P; Stankiewicz A Klin Oczna; 1998; 100(4):221-4. PubMed ID: 9770981 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking. Murray IC; Fleck BW; Brash HM; Macrae ME; Tan LL; Minns RA Ophthalmology; 2009 Oct; 116(10):2017-26. PubMed ID: 19560207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Central visual field changes using flicker perimetry in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Stavrou EP; Wood JM Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2005 Oct; 83(5):574-80. PubMed ID: 16187995 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Five years comparison between static circular perimetry and kinetic perimetry]. Chagnon AM; Ourgaud M; Ourgaud AG Bull Soc Ophtalmol Fr; 1982 Feb; 82(2):193-5. PubMed ID: 7105329 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Interpreting glaucoma progression by white-on-white perimetry. Tan JC; Franks WA; Hitchings RA Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Jul; 240(7):585-92. PubMed ID: 12136293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Static perimetry in glaucoma (a comparison with kinetic perimetry). Khamar BM Indian J Ophthalmol; 1982 Jul; 30(4):383-6. PubMed ID: 7166424 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Interpretation of automated perimetry. Zeyen T Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 1997; 267():191-7. PubMed ID: 9745830 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Vigabatrin and visual field defects. A Danish material with evaluation of different screening methods]. Riise P; Fledelius HC; Rogvi-Hansen Bà Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Mar; 165(10):1034-8. PubMed ID: 12645411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma]. Nowomiejska K; Paetzold J; Krapp E; Rejdak R; Zagórski Z; Schiefer U Klin Oczna; 2004; 106(1-2 Suppl):231-3. PubMed ID: 15510509 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Principles of static perimetry from the perspective of the computer-assisted method]. Zawojski A; Dudziński A Klin Oczna; 1986 Aug; 88(8):296-8. PubMed ID: 3573676 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of visual evoked potentials, automated perimetry and frequency-doubling perimetry in early detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Sarić D; Mandić Z; Iveković R; Geber MZ; Benić G; Tomić Z; Grgić D Coll Antropol; 2005; 29 Suppl 1():111-3. PubMed ID: 16193690 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]