151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33727459)
1. Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
Bhaskaran K; Phuljhele S; Kumar P; Saxena R; Angmo D; Sharma P
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):918-922. PubMed ID: 33727459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters.
Hashimoto S; Matsumoto C; Eura M; Okuyama S; Shimomura Y
Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2017 Jul; 61(4):299-306. PubMed ID: 28444485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The performance of iPad-based noise-field perimeter versus Humphrey Field Analyser in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss.
Ding J; Tecson IC; Ang BCH; Chiew W; Chua C; Yip LWL
Eye (Lond); 2022 Apr; 36(4):800-811. PubMed ID: 33879855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?
Szatmáry G; Biousse V; Newman NJ
Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1162-73. PubMed ID: 12215089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of kinetic perimetry assessment with the Humphrey 850; an exploratory comparative study.
Rowe FJ; Hepworth LR; Hanna KL; Mistry M; Noonan CP
Eye (Lond); 2019 Dec; 33(12):1952-1960. PubMed ID: 31332292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): evaluation of kinetic approaches in childhood neuro-ophthalmic disease.
Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS;
Br J Ophthalmol; 2019 Aug; 103(8):1085-1091. PubMed ID: 30232171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Threshold equivalence between perimeters.
Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Alward WL; Skuta GL
Am J Ophthalmol; 1989 May; 107(5):493-505. PubMed ID: 2712132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry.
Bevers C; Blanckaert G; Van Keer K; Fils JF; Vandewalle E; Stalmans I
Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 97(4):e499-e505. PubMed ID: 30345638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry.
Agarwal HC; Gulati V; Sihota R
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Dec; 48(4):301-6. PubMed ID: 11340889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of octopus semi-automated kinetic perimetry and humphrey peripheral static perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic cases.
Rowe FJ; Noonan C; Manuel M
ISRN Ophthalmol; 2013; 2013():753202. PubMed ID: 24558605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.
Beck RW; Bergstrom TJ; Lichter PR
Ophthalmology; 1985 Jan; 92(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 3974997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
Bass SJ; Feldman J
Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Detection of Visual Field Loss in Pituitary Disease: Peripheral Kinetic Versus Central Static.
Rowe FJ; Cheyne CP; García-Fiñana M; Noonan CP; Howard C; Smith J; Adeoye J
Neuroophthalmology; 2015 Jun; 39(3):116-124. PubMed ID: 27928344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial.
Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Spurr JO; Beck RW
Am J Ophthalmol; 1999 Nov; 128(5):543-53. PubMed ID: 10577521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of quantitative testing with the Octopus, Humphrey, and Tübingen perimeters.
Mills RP; Hopp RH; Drance SM
Am J Ophthalmol; 1986 Oct; 102(4):496-504. PubMed ID: 3766667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Changes to central visual fields in cases of severe myopia in a Chinese population.
Cao Q; Li L; Zhong H; Wei T; Yuan YS; Li Y
Ann Palliat Med; 2020 Sep; 9(5):2616-2622. PubMed ID: 32954742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields.
Riemann CD; Hanson S; Foster JA
Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Jan; 118(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 10636416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Visual field defects in acute optic neuritis--distribution of different types of defect pattern, assessed with threshold-related supraliminal perimetry, ensuring high spatial resolution.
Nevalainen J; Krapp E; Paetzold J; Mildenberger I; Besch D; Vonthein R; Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Schiefer U
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2008 Apr; 246(4):599-607. PubMed ID: 18239928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): Feasibility, Reliability and Repeatability of Perimetry in Children.
Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Rahi JS;
PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130895. PubMed ID: 26091102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
