198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32649448)
1. Comparison and Correlation of Retinal Sensitivity Between Microperimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Low-tension Glaucoma.
Tepelus TC; Song S; Nittala MG; Nassisi M; Sadda SR; Chopra V
J Glaucoma; 2020 Oct; 29(10):975-980. PubMed ID: 32649448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating the Usefulness of MP-3 Microperimetry in Glaucoma Patients.
Matsuura M; Murata H; Fujino Y; Hirasawa K; Yanagisawa M; Asaoka R
Am J Ophthalmol; 2018 Mar; 187():1-9. PubMed ID: 29248331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Advanced Vision Analyzer-Virtual Reality Perimeter: Device Validation, Functional Correlation and Comparison with Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Narang P; Agarwal A; Srinivasan M; Agarwal A
Ophthalmol Sci; 2021 Jun; 1(2):100035. PubMed ID: 36249304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.
Acton JH; Bartlett NS; Greenstein VC
Optom Vis Sci; 2011 Nov; 88(11):1288-97. PubMed ID: 21822159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Multicenter Comparison of the Toronto Portable Perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer: A Pilot Study.
Ahmed Y; Pereira A; Bowden S; Shi RB; Li Y; Ahmed IIK; Arshinoff SA
Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2022; 5(2):146-159. PubMed ID: 34358734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. RETeval Portable Electroretinogram Parameters in Different Severity Stages of Glaucoma.
Kita Y; Holló G; Saito T; Momota Y; Kita R; Tsunoda K; Hirakata A
J Glaucoma; 2020 Jul; 29(7):572-580. PubMed ID: 32287150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA.
Fredette MJ; Giguère A; Anderson DR; Budenz DL; McSoley J
Optom Vis Sci; 2015 May; 92(5):527-36. PubMed ID: 25875683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Circumpapillary microperimetry to detect glaucoma: a pilot study for sector-based comparison to circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer measurement.
Kita Y; Hollό G; Saito T; Murai A; Kita R; Hirakata A
Int Ophthalmol; 2019 Jan; 39(1):127-136. PubMed ID: 29249069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Fixation behavior in advanced stage glaucoma assessed by the MicroPerimeter MP-1.
Kameda T; Tanabe T; Hangai M; Ojima T; Aikawa H; Yoshimura N
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2009 Nov; 53(6):580-587. PubMed ID: 20020235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Predicting Humphrey 10-2 visual field from 24-2 visual field in eyes with advanced glaucoma.
Sugisaki K; Asaoka R; Inoue T; Yoshikawa K; Kanamori A; Yamazaki Y; Ishikawa S; Nemoto H; Iwase A; Araie M
Br J Ophthalmol; 2020 May; 104(5):642-647. PubMed ID: 31481390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Interdevice comparison of retinal sensitivity assessments in a healthy population: the CenterVue MAIA and the Nidek MP-3 microperimeters.
Balasubramanian S; Uji A; Lei J; Velaga S; Nittala M; Sadda S
Br J Ophthalmol; 2018 Jan; 102(1):109-113. PubMed ID: 28495907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. A comparison among Humphrey field analyzer, Microperimetry, and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in the evaluation of macula in primary open angle glaucoma.
Oztürk F; Yavas GF; Küsbeci T; Ermis SS
J Glaucoma; 2008 Mar; 17(2):118-21. PubMed ID: 18344757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Diffuse glaucomatous structural and functional damage in the hemifield without significant pattern loss.
Grewal DS; Sehi M; Greenfield DS
Arch Ophthalmol; 2009 Nov; 127(11):1442-8. PubMed ID: 19901209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.
Phu J; Wang H; Kalloniatis M
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2024 Jan; 44(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 37803502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Efficacy of SLO-Microperimetry and Humphrey for evaluating macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.
Kulkarni SV; Coupland SG; Stitt DM; Hamilton J; Brownstein JJ; Damji KF
Can J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 48(5):406-12. PubMed ID: 24093188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reproducibility of Microperimeter 3 (MP-3) Microperimetry in Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients.
Leisser C; Palkovits S; Hirnschall N; Georgiev S; Findl O
Ophthalmic Res; 2020; 63(3):302-308. PubMed ID: 31430750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of the Performance of a Novel, Smartphone-based, Head-mounted Perimeter (GearVision) With the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Pradhan ZS; Sircar T; Agrawal H; Rao HL; Bopardikar A; Devi S; Tiwari VN
J Glaucoma; 2021 Apr; 30(4):e146-e152. PubMed ID: 33596021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
