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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3431825)

  • 1. The influence of refraction accuracy on automated perimetric threshold measurements.
    Heuer DK; Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Gressel MG
    Ophthalmology; 1987 Dec; 94(12):1550-3. PubMed ID: 3431825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The influence of simulated light scattering on automated perimetric threshold measurements.
    Heuer DK; Anderson DR; Knighton RW; Feuer WJ; Gressel MG
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1988 Sep; 106(9):1247-51. PubMed ID: 3415549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The influence of decreased retinal illumination on automated perimetric threshold measurements.
    Heuer DK; Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Gressel MG
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1989 Dec; 108(6):643-50. PubMed ID: 2596543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of refractive correction on peripheral visual field in static perimetry.
    Koller G; Haas A; Zulauf M; Koerner F; Mojon D
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2001 Oct; 239(10):759-62. PubMed ID: 11760037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of refractive correction on automated perimetric thresholds.
    Weinreb RN; Perlman JP
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1986 Jun; 101(6):706-9. PubMed ID: 3717255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The relationship of visual threshold and reaction time to visual field eccentricity with conventional automated perimetry.
    Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
    Vision Res; 2002 Mar; 42(6):781-7. PubMed ID: 11888543
    [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. 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]  

  • 9. Peripheral refractive correction and automated perimetric profiles.
    Wild JM; Wood JM; Crews SJ
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1988 Jun; 66(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 10994444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peripheral refraction in myopic patients after orthokeratology.
    Queirós A; González-Méijome JM; Jorge J; Villa-Collar C; Gutiérrez AR
    Optom Vis Sci; 2010 May; 87(5):323-9. PubMed ID: 20375751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers.
    Lewis RA; Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Labermeier PK
    Ophthalmology; 1986 Jul; 93(7):878-81. PubMed ID: 3763131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Calibration of the Dicon Auto Perimeter 2000 compared with that of the Goldmann perimeter.
    Hart WM; Gordon MO
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1983 Dec; 96(6):744-50. PubMed ID: 6660263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perimetric profiles and cortical representation.
    Wood JM; Wild JM; Drasdo N; Crews SJ
    Ophthalmic Res; 1986; 18(5):301-8. PubMed ID: 3808596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visual field (Octopus 1-2-3) in normal subjects divided into homogeneous age-groups.
    Calixto N; Santos RM; Cronemberger S
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2006; 69(5):637-43. PubMed ID: 17187126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [The influence of target blurring and simulated opacity of the ocular media on automated perimetric thresholds].
    Uyama K; Matsumoto C; Okuyama S; Otori T
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 1993 Aug; 97(8):994-1001. PubMed ID: 8368190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs.
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):5029-34. PubMed ID: 14578431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Age-dependent normative values for differential luminance sensitivity in automated static perimetry using the Octopus 101.
    Hermann A; Paetzold J; Vonthein R; Krapp E; Rauscher S; Schiefer U
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Jun; 86(4):446-55. PubMed ID: 18070224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Background illumination and automated perimetry.
    Klewin KM; Radius RL
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1986 Mar; 104(3):395-7. PubMed ID: 3754130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Specificity of suprathreshold test methods in automated perimetry].
    De Natale R; Gramer E; Krieglstein GK
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1985 Feb; 186(2):110-3. PubMed ID: 3839032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.
    Heijl A; Lindgren G; Olsson J
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Nov; 105(11):1544-9. PubMed ID: 3675288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.