204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33323582)
1. Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population.
Ichhpujani P; Thakur S; Sahi RK; Kumar S
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Jan; 69(1):87-91. PubMed ID: 33323582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of an iPad Application to Detect Moderate and Advanced Visual Field Loss in Nepal.
Johnson CA; Thapa S; George Kong YX; Robin AL
Am J Ophthalmol; 2017 Oct; 182():147-154. PubMed ID: 28844641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic accuracy of an iPad application for detection of visual field defects.
Richardson QR; Kumar RS; Ramgopal B; Rackenchath MV; A V SD; Mannil SS; Nagaraj S; Moe CA; Wittberg DM; O'Brien KS; Oatts JT; Stamper RL; Keenan JD
Eye (Lond); 2023 Jun; 37(8):1690-1695. PubMed ID: 36064770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Oculokinetic perimetry compared with Humphrey visual field analysis in the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Wishart PK
Eye (Lond); 1993; 7 ( Pt 1)():113-21. PubMed ID: 8325400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Ophthalmology; 2002 Jun; 109(6):1052-8. PubMed ID: 12045043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Is visual field evaluation using multiple correlations and linear regressions useful? An evaluation of Delphi perimetry.
Wishart PK; Wardrop DR; Kosmin AS
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1998 Jul; 236(7):493-500. PubMed ID: 9672794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The efficacy of the dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing.
Huang AS; Smith SD; Quigley HA
J Glaucoma; 1998 Jun; 7(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 9627854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Glaucoma diagnostics.
Geimer SA
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma.
Griffin JM; Slagle GT; Vu TA; Eis A; Sponsel WE
J Curr Glaucoma Pract; 2024; 18(1):4-9. PubMed ID: 38585168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Agreement Between an iPad Visual Field App and Humphrey Frequency Doubling Technology in Visual Field Screening at Health Fairs.
Kitayama K; Young AG; Ochoa A; Yu F; Wong KY; Coleman AL
J Glaucoma; 2021 Sep; 30(9):846-850. PubMed ID: 34172631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Diagnostic Accuracy of Frequency-Doubling Technology and the Moorfields Motion Displacement Test for Glaucoma.
Richardson QR; Kumar RS; Ramgopal B; Rackenchath MV; A V SD; Mannil SS; Nagaraj S; Moe CA; Wittberg DM; O'Brien KS; Oatts JT; Stamper RL; Keenan JD
Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2023; 6(3):239-246. PubMed ID: 36435449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population.
Kumar H; Thulasidas M
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):1017-1018. PubMed ID: 33727491
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Response to comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population.
Ichhpujani P; Thakur S; Sahi RK; Kumar S
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):1018-1019. PubMed ID: 33727492
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss.
Goldberg I; Graham SL; Klistorner AI
Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Jan; 133(1):29-39. PubMed ID: 11755837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Johnson CA; Adams AJ; Casson EJ; Brandt JD
Arch Ophthalmol; 1993 May; 111(5):645-50. PubMed ID: 8489447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Peristat: a computer-based perimetry self-test for cost-effective population screening of glaucoma.
Ianchulev T; Pham P; Makarov V; Francis B; Minckler D
Curr Eye Res; 2005 Jan; 30(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 15875358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
