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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33344047)

  • 1. Comparative Study Between the SORS and Dynamic Strategy Visual Field Testing Methods on Glaucomatous and Healthy Subjects.
    Kucur ŞS; Häckel S; Stapelfeldt J; Odermatt J; Iliev ME; Abegg M; Sznitman R; Höhn R
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2020 Dec; 9(13):3. PubMed ID: 33344047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Virtual Reality-Based and Conventional Visual Field Examination Comparison in Healthy and Glaucoma Patients.
    Stapelfeldt J; Kucur SS; Huber N; Höhn R; Sznitman R
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2021 Oct; 10(12):10. PubMed ID: 34614166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Nevalainen J; Paetzold J; Krapp E; Vonthein R; Johnson CA; Schiefer U
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2008 Sep; 246(9):1331-9. PubMed ID: 18563431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Spatial Entropy Pursuit for Fast and Accurate Perimetry Testing.
    Wild D; Kucur SS; Sznitman R
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Jul; 58(9):3414-3424. PubMed ID: 28692736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of Quality and Output of Different Optimal Perimetric Testing Approaches in Children With Glaucoma.
    Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Brookes J; Papadopoulos M; Khaw PT; Viswanathan AC; Garway-Heath D; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS;
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Feb; 136(2):155-161. PubMed ID: 29285534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes.
    Maeda H; Nakaura M; Negi A
    Eye (Lond); 2000 Oct; 14 Pt 5():747-51. PubMed ID: 11116697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
    Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
    Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Objective perimetry in glaucoma.
    Klistorner A; Graham SL
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Dec; 107(12):2283-99. PubMed ID: 11097611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma.
    Pineles SL; Volpe NJ; Miller-Ellis E; Galetta SL; Sankar PS; Shindler KS; Maguire MG
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2006 Mar; 124(3):363-9. PubMed ID: 16534056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Isolation of short-wavelength sensitive mechanisms in normal and glaucomatous visual field regions.
    Demirel S; Johnson CA
    J Glaucoma; 2000 Feb; 9(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 10708234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients.
    Hirasawa K; Takahashi N; Satou T; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N
    Curr Eye Res; 2017 Aug; 42(8):1160-1168. PubMed ID: 28441081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Identifying "preperimetric" glaucoma in standard automated perimetry visual fields.
    Asaoka R; Iwase A; Hirasawa K; Murata H; Araie M
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Oct; 55(12):7814-20. PubMed ID: 25342615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Influence of Test Strategy on Octopus Perimeter Cluster Mean Defect Values: Adaptive Bracketing Normal Strategy Versus Tendency-oriented Perimetry.
    Holló G
    J Glaucoma; 2016 Oct; 25(10):830-834. PubMed ID: 27300642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of a Novel Visual Field Analyzer Application for Automated Classification of Glaucoma Severity.
    Germano RAS; de Moraes CG; Susanna R; Dantas DO; Neto EDS
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Jun; 26(6):586-591. PubMed ID: 28368999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Cello KE; Nelson-Quigg JM; Johnson CA
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):314-22. PubMed ID: 10704546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry for detection of the development of visual field defects in glaucoma suspect eyes: a prospective study.
    Liu S; Yu M; Weinreb RN; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2014 Jan; 132(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 24177945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma.
    Sample PA; Bosworth CF; Blumenthal EZ; Girkin C; Weinreb RN
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jun; 41(7):1783-90. PubMed ID: 10845599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.