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.
110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3579704)
1. Examination of the peripheral visual field. Obligatory, helpful, or a waste of resources? Wirtschafter JD Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Jun; 105(6):761-2. PubMed ID: 3579704 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests. Prasad S; Cohen AB Neurology; 2011 Mar; 76(13):1192-3; author reply 1193. PubMed ID: 21444908 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A traffic perimetry test that adheres to the European visual field requirements for group 2 drivers. Jørstad ØK; Jonsdottir TE; Zysset S; Rowe FJ Acta Ophthalmol; 2021 Nov; 99(7):e1253-e1254. PubMed ID: 33421353 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. How long will automated perimetry remain standard practice? Gutteridge IF Clin Exp Optom; 2005 Mar; 88(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 15807637 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Computerized expert system for evaluation of automated visual fields from the Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Decompression Trial: methods, baseline fields, and six-month longitudinal follow-up. Feldon SE Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2004; 102():269-303. PubMed ID: 15747764 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Factors that influence automated perimetry. Fingeret M Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2012 Oct; 53(11):7018. PubMed ID: 23047719 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Alward WL Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):376-8. PubMed ID: 10755955 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Signal/noise ratios to compare tests for measuring visual field progression. Ernest PJ Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2010 Dec; 51(12):6893; author reply 6893-4. PubMed ID: 21123778 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Will we master the Humphrey perimeter or will the Humphrey perimeter master us? Manor RS Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Nov; 107(11):1565-6. PubMed ID: 2818272 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Modified visual field trend analysis. De Moraes CG; Ritch R; Tello C; Liebmann JM J Glaucoma; 2011; 20(4):203-6. PubMed ID: 20520567 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
17. Scanning laser polarimetry and progression of visual field defects after intraocular pressure increase. Lopes JF; Susanna R Arch Ophthalmol; 2003 Oct; 121(10):1500-1. PubMed ID: 14557197 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Recognizing glaucomatous field loss with the Humphrey STATPAC. Enger C; Sommer A Arch Ophthalmol; 1987 Oct; 105(10):1355-7. PubMed ID: 3662906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pulsar perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Gonzalez de la Rosa M Am J Ophthalmol; 2011 Sep; 152(3):500-501. PubMed ID: 21855674 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Functional constriction of the ocular motor field: description and preliminary evaluation of a new technique to help distinguish organic from nonorganic visual field loss. Ali N J Neuroophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 31(2):131-4. PubMed ID: 21368668 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]