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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32882222)

  • 1. Glaucoma Home Monitoring Using a Tablet-Based Visual Field Test (Eyecatcher): An Assessment of Accuracy and Adherence Over 6 Months.
    Jones PR; Campbell P; Callaghan T; Jones L; Asfaw DS; Edgar DF; Crabb DP
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2021 Mar; 223():42-52. PubMed ID: 32882222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An objective evaluation of gaze tracking in Humphrey perimetry and the relation with the reproducibility of visual fields: a pilot study in glaucoma.
    Ishiyama Y; Murata H; Mayama C; Asaoka R
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Nov; 55(12):8149-52. PubMed ID: 25389198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Using an open-source tablet perimeter (Eyecatcher) as a rapid triage measure for glaucoma clinic waiting areas.
    Jones PR; Lindfield D; Crabb DP
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2021 May; 105(5):681-686. PubMed ID: 32747334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Acceptability of a home-based visual field test (Eyecatcher) for glaucoma home monitoring: a qualitative study of patients' views and experiences.
    Jones L; Callaghan T; Campbell P; Jones PR; Taylor DJ; Asfaw DS; Edgar DF; Crabb DP
    BMJ Open; 2021 Apr; 11(4):e043130. PubMed ID: 33820785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Uptake, Persistence, and Performance of Weekly Home Monitoring of Visual Field in a Large Cohort of Patients With Glaucoma.
    Prea SM; Kong GYX; Guymer RH; Vingrys AJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2021 Mar; 223():286-295. PubMed ID: 33221287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Estimating the Reliability of Glaucomatous Visual Field for the Accurate Assessment of Progression Using the Gaze-Tracking and Reliability Indices.
    Asaoka R; Fujino Y; Aoki S; Matsuura M; Murata H
    Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2019; 2(2):111-119. PubMed ID: 32672604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Can Home Monitoring Allow Earlier Detection of Rapid Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma?
    Anderson AJ; Bedggood PA; George Kong YX; Martin KR; Vingrys AJ
    Ophthalmology; 2017 Dec; 124(12):1735-1742. PubMed ID: 28764889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Value of 10-2 Visual Field Testing in Glaucoma Patients with Early 24-2 Visual Field Loss.
    West ME; Sharpe GP; Hutchison DM; Rafuse PE; Shuba LM; Nicolela MT; Vianna JR; Chauhan BC
    Ophthalmology; 2021 Apr; 128(4):545-553. PubMed ID: 32898515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing Glaucoma Progression Using Machine Learning Trained on Longitudinal Visual Field and Clinical Data.
    Dixit A; Yohannan J; Boland MV
    Ophthalmology; 2021 Jul; 128(7):1016-1026. PubMed ID: 33359887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Detecting Preperimetric Glaucoma with Standard Automated Perimetry Using a Deep Learning Classifier.
    Asaoka R; Murata H; Iwase A; Araie M
    Ophthalmology; 2016 Sep; 123(9):1974-80. PubMed ID: 27395766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression.
    Freeman SE; De Arrigunaga S; Kang J; Zhao Y; Roldán AM; Lin MM; Elze T; Liebman D; Chang DS; Friedman DS
    J Glaucoma; 2023 Nov; 32(11):948-953. PubMed ID: 37671465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Peripapillary and Macular Vessel Density in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma and Unilateral Visual Field Loss.
    Yarmohammadi A; Zangwill LM; Manalastas PIC; Fuller NJ; Diniz-Filho A; Saunders LJ; Suh MH; Hasenstab K; Weinreb RN
    Ophthalmology; 2018 Apr; 125(4):578-587. PubMed ID: 29174012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Efficacy of the Amsler Grid Test in Evaluating Glaucomatous Central Visual Field Defects.
    Su D; Greenberg A; Simonson JL; Teng CC; Liebmann JM; Ritch R; Park SC
    Ophthalmology; 2016 Apr; 123(4):737-43. PubMed ID: 26783097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Learning effect and test-retest variability of pulsar perimetry.
    Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Parisi L; Johnson CA; Sampaolesi R; Brusini P
    J Glaucoma; 2013 Mar; 22(3):230-7. PubMed ID: 22027935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Reversal of Glaucoma Hemifield Test Results and Visual Field Features in Glaucoma.
    Wang M; Pasquale LR; Shen LQ; Boland MV; Wellik SR; De Moraes CG; Myers JS; Wang H; Baniasadi N; Li D; Silva RNE; Bex PJ; Elze T
    Ophthalmology; 2018 Mar; 125(3):352-360. PubMed ID: 29103791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Visual Field Progression in Patients with Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma Using Pointwise Linear Regression Analysis.
    Verma S; Nongpiur ME; Atalay E; Wei X; Husain R; Goh D; Perera SA; Aung T
    Ophthalmology; 2017 Jul; 124(7):1065-1071. PubMed ID: 28372858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Parafoveal scotoma progression in glaucoma: humphrey 10-2 versus 24-2 visual field analysis.
    Park SC; Kung Y; Su D; Simonson JL; Furlanetto RL; Liebmann JM; Ritch R
    Ophthalmology; 2013 Aug; 120(8):1546-50. PubMed ID: 23697959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.