297 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33798655)
1. The Effect of Transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on Visual Field Performance.
Pham AT; Ramulu PY; Boland MV; Yohannan J
Ophthalmology; 2021 Oct; 128(10):1417-1425. PubMed ID: 33798655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quantification and Predictors of Visual Field Variability in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucomatous Eyes Using SITA-Faster.
Tan JCK; Agar A; Kalloniatis M; Phu J
Ophthalmology; 2024 Jun; 131(6):658-666. PubMed ID: 38110124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability.
Yohannan J; Wang J; Brown J; Chauhan BC; Boland MV; Friedman DS; Ramulu PY
Ophthalmology; 2017 Nov; 124(11):1612-1620. PubMed ID: 28676280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Comparison of the Visual Field Parameters of SITA Faster and SITA Standard Strategies in Glaucoma.
Lavanya R; Riyazuddin M; Dasari S; Puttaiah NK; Venugopal JP; Pradhan ZS; Devi S; Sreenivasaiah S; Ganeshrao SB; Rao HL
J Glaucoma; 2020 Sep; 29(9):783-788. PubMed ID: 32459685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Effect of Achieving Target Intraocular Pressure on Visual Field Worsening.
Villasana GA; Bradley C; Ramulu P; Unberath M; Yohannan J
Ophthalmology; 2022 Jan; 129(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 34506846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Predictors of Long-Term Visual Field Fluctuation in Glaucoma Patients.
Rabiolo A; Morales E; Kim JH; Afifi AA; Yu F; Nouri-Mahdavi K; Caprioli J
Ophthalmology; 2020 Jun; 127(6):739-747. PubMed ID: 31952885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster.
Le CT; Fiksel J; Ramulu P; Yohannan J
Sci Rep; 2022 Apr; 12(1):7001. PubMed ID: 35488026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm: analysis of large-scale data from clinics.
Saunders LJ; Russell RA; Crabb DP
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Jan; 133(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 25340390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Performance of the visual field index in glaucoma patients with moderately advanced visual field loss.
Lee JM; Cirineo N; Ramanathan M; Nouri-Mahdavi K; Morales E; Coleman AL; Caprioli J
Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jan; 157(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 24200229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations.
Rao HL; Begum VU; Khadka D; Mandal AK; Senthil S; Garudadri CS
PLoS One; 2015; 10(5):e0127233. PubMed ID: 25978316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of 24-2 Faster, Fast, and Standard Programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for Perimetry in Patients With Manifest and Suspect Glaucoma.
Thulasidas M; Patyal S
J Glaucoma; 2020 Nov; 29(11):1070-1076. PubMed ID: 32890104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.
Heijl A; Patella VM; Chong LX; Iwase A; Leung CK; Tuulonen A; Lee GC; Callan T; Bengtsson B
Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Feb; 198():154-165. PubMed ID: 30336129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter?
Kelly SR; Bryan SR; Crabb DP
Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Sep; 97(6):e833-e838. PubMed ID: 30801992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Frontloading SITA-Faster Can Increase Frequency and Reliability of Visual Field Testing at Minimal Time Cost.
Tan JCK; Kalloniatis M; Phu J
Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2023; 6(5):445-456. PubMed ID: 36958625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Faster algorithms to measure visual field using the variational Bayes linear regression model in glaucoma: comparison with SITA-Fast.
Hirasawa K; Murata H; Shimada S; Matsuno M; Shoji N; Asaoka R
Br J Ophthalmol; 2023 Jul; 107(7):946-952. PubMed ID: 35232725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Progression of patterns (POP): a machine classifier algorithm to identify glaucoma progression in visual fields.
Goldbaum MH; Lee I; Jang G; Balasubramanian M; Sample PA; Weinreb RN; Liebmann JM; Girkin CA; Anderson DR; Zangwill LM; Fredette MJ; Jung TP; Medeiros FA; Bowd C
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Sep; 53(10):6557-67. PubMed ID: 22786913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2C Test Grids for Identifying Central Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Suspect Patients.
Phu J; Kalloniatis M
Ophthalmology; 2021 Oct; 128(10):1405-1416. PubMed ID: 33722636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of focal lamina cribrosa defect on glaucomatous visual field progression.
Faridi OS; Park SC; Kabadi R; Su D; De Moraes CG; Liebmann JM; Ritch R
Ophthalmology; 2014 Aug; 121(8):1524-30. PubMed ID: 24697910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
