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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33421353)

  • 41. Does the niqab (veil) wearer satisfy the minimal visual field for driving?
    Pearce EI; Walsh G; Dutton GN
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2008 Jul; 28(4):310-2. PubMed ID: 18565085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Comparison of driving performance of young and old drivers (with and without visual impairment) measured during in-traffic conditions.
    Wood JM; Mallon K
    Optom Vis Sci; 2001 May; 78(5):343-9. PubMed ID: 11384012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [The evaluation of binocular visual field and clinical application of glaucoma].
    Wu YL; Zhong H
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2016 Nov; 52(11):872-875. PubMed ID: 27852405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma.
    Mönter VM; Crabb DP; Artes PH
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Feb; 58(2):868-875. PubMed ID: 28159974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. [Effect of model disorders of binocular vision on automobile driving].
    Iachmeneva EI; Rozenblium IuZ; Chernysheva SG; Eremin VM
    Fiziol Cheloveka; 1994; 20(5):156-8. PubMed ID: 7843539
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Baloh FG
    J Natl Med Assoc; 1991 Oct; 83(10):895-8. PubMed ID: 1800764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP).
    Johnson CA; Sample PA; Cioffi GA; Liebmann JR; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 134(2):177-85. PubMed ID: 12140023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Signal/noise analysis to compare tests for measuring visual field loss and its progression.
    Artes PH; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Oct; 50(10):4700-8. PubMed ID: 19458326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Frequency doubling perimetry in patients with mild and moderate pituitary tumor-associated visual field defects detected by conventional perimetry.
    Monteiro ML; Moura FC; Cunha LP
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2007; 70(2):323-9. PubMed ID: 17589707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Validity, reliability, and repeatability of the useful field of view test in persons with normal vision and patients with glaucoma.
    Bentley SA; LeBlanc RP; Nicolela MT; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Oct; 53(11):6763-9. PubMed ID: 22956614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Patients with homonymous hemianopia become visually qualified to drive using novel monocular sector prisms.
    Moss AM; Harrison AR; Lee MS
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2014 Mar; 34(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 24135970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. The decline in attentional visual fields over time among older participants in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Driving Study.
    Rao P; Munoz B; Turano K; Munro C; West SK
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Mar; 54(3):1839-44. PubMed ID: 23361510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Pointwise univariate linear regression of perimetric sensitivity against follow-up time in glaucoma.
    Cox TA
    Ophthalmology; 1998 Feb; 105(2):204-5. PubMed ID: 9479276
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Automobile driving performance of brain-injured patients with visual field defects.
    Schulte T; Strasburger H; Müller-Oehring EM; Kasten E; Sabel BA
    Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 1999; 78(2):136-42. PubMed ID: 10088588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Identification of functional visual field loss by automated static perimetry.
    Frisén L
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 92(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 24698019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Automated perimetry. How do we interpret the results?
    Wilensky JT
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Feb; 107(2):185-6. PubMed ID: 2916969
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Important areas of the central binocular visual field for daily functioning in the visually impaired.
    Tabrett DR; Latham K
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2012 Mar; 32(2):156-63. PubMed ID: 22304533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Comparison of Impact of Monocular and Integrated Binocular Visual Fields on Vision-related Quality of Life.
    Chun YS; Lee DI; Kwon J; Park IK
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):283-291. PubMed ID: 28079653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The correlation between glaucomatous visual field loss and vision-related quality of life.
    Orta AÖ; Öztürker ZK; Erkul SÖ; Bayraktar Ş; Yilmaz OF
    J Glaucoma; 2015; 24(5):e121-7. PubMed ID: 25642814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Intersession repeatability of humphrey perimetry measurements in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.
    Kim LS; McAnany JJ; Alexander KR; Fishman GA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Oct; 48(10):4720-4. PubMed ID: 17898296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.