105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34459022)
1. Investigating the discrepancy between MAIA and MP-1 microperimetry results.
Xu L; Wu Z; Guymer RH; Anderson AJ
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2021 Nov; 41(6):1231-1240. PubMed ID: 34459022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interdevice comparison of retinal sensitivity assessments in a healthy population: the CenterVue MAIA and the Nidek MP-3 microperimeters.
Balasubramanian S; Uji A; Lei J; Velaga S; Nittala M; Sadda S
Br J Ophthalmol; 2018 Jan; 102(1):109-113. PubMed ID: 28495907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Inter-device comparison of retinal sensitivity measurements: the CenterVue MAIA and the Nidek MP-1.
Wong EN; Mackey DA; Morgan WH; Chen FK
Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016; 44(1):15-23. PubMed ID: 26285157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparisons of Two Microperimeters: The Clinical Value of an Extended Stimulus Range.
Arango T; Morse AR; Seiple W
Optom Vis Sci; 2018 Aug; 95(8):663-671. PubMed ID: 30063665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. MP1 AND MAIA FUNDUS PERIMETRY IN HEALTHY SUBJECTS AND PATIENTS AFFECTED BY RETINAL DYSTROPHIES.
Parodi MB; Triolo G; Morales M; Borrelli E; Cicinelli MV; Cascavilla ML; Bandello F
Retina; 2015 Aug; 35(8):1662-9. PubMed ID: 26214316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interpreting MAIA Microperimetry Using Age- and Retinal Loci-Specific Reference Thresholds.
Charng J; Sanfilippo PG; Attia MS; Dolliver M; Arunachalam S; Chew AL; Wong EN; Mackey DA; Chen FK
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2020 Jun; 9(7):19. PubMed ID: 32832226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison and Correlation of Retinal Sensitivity Between Microperimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Low-tension Glaucoma.
Tepelus TC; Song S; Nittala MG; Nassisi M; Sadda SR; Chopra V
J Glaucoma; 2020 Oct; 29(10):975-980. PubMed ID: 32649448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Inter and intradevice assessment of microperimetry testing in aging eyes.
Coulibaly LM; Mohamed H; Fuchs P; Schmidt-Erfurth U; Reiter GS
Sci Rep; 2024 Jan; 14(1):1049. PubMed ID: 38200267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.
Acton JH; Bartlett NS; Greenstein VC
Optom Vis Sci; 2011 Nov; 88(11):1288-97. PubMed ID: 21822159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of Two Systems for Fundus-Controlled Scotopic and Mesopic Perimetry in Eye with Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Steinberg JS; Saßmannshausen M; Pfau M; Fleckenstein M; Finger RP; Holz FG; Schmitz-Valckenberg S
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2017 Jul; 6(4):7. PubMed ID: 28713647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Feasibility of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) Microperimetry in Children: Sensitivity, Reliability, and Fixation Stability in Healthy Observers.
Jones PR; Yasoubi N; Nardini M; Rubin GS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Nov; 57(14):6349-6359. PubMed ID: 27898980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of Central Retinal Sensitivity Employing Two Types of Microperimetry Devices.
Liu H; Bittencourt MG; Wang J; Sophie R; Annam R; Ibrahim MA; Sepah YJ; Moradi A; Scholl HP; Nguyen QD
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2014 Sep; 3(5):3. PubMed ID: 25237592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Spatial Interpolation Enables Normative Data Comparison in Gaze-Contingent Microperimetry.
Denniss J; Astle AT
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Oct; 57(13):5449-5456. PubMed ID: 27760271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Efficacy of SLO-Microperimetry and Humphrey for evaluating macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.
Kulkarni SV; Coupland SG; Stitt DM; Hamilton J; Brownstein JJ; Damji KF
Can J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 48(5):406-12. PubMed ID: 24093188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Macular sensitivities measured by microperimetry in patients on hydroxychloroquine treatment.
Eren M; Kucukevcilioglu M; Durukan AH
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2018 Sep; 37(3):275-280. PubMed ID: 29495877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Normal values for microperimetry with the MAIA microperimeter: sensitivity and fixation analysis in healthy adults and children.
Molina-Martín A; Piñero DP; Pérez-Cambrodí RJ
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2017 Aug; 27(5):607-613. PubMed ID: 28127734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Microperimetry and clinical practice: an evidence-based review.
Markowitz SN; Reyes SV
Can J Ophthalmol; 2013 Oct; 48(5):350-7. PubMed ID: 24093179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Microperimetry as an Outcome Measure in Choroideremia Trials: Reproducibility and Beyond.
Dimopoulos IS; Tseng C; MacDonald IM
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Aug; 57(10):4151-61. PubMed ID: 27537265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mesopic Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity and MP-1 microperimetry in healthy ageing and age-related macular degeneration.
Maynard ML; Zele AJ; Feigl B
Acta Ophthalmol; 2016 Dec; 94(8):e772-e778. PubMed ID: 27225020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Functional evaluation of the macular area in early glaucoma using microperimetry.
Phuljhele S; Angmo D; Aalok L; Parwal S; Azad RV; Gupta V; Sihota R
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):876-881. PubMed ID: 33727451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
