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.
3. 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]
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. Evaluation of the Consistency of Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects Using a Clustered SITA-Faster Protocol. Tan JCK; Phu J; Go D; Nguyen D; Masselos K; Bank A; Kalloniatis M; Agar A Ophthalmology; 2023 Nov; 130(11):1138-1148. PubMed ID: 37385298 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Clinical Evaluation of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Faster Compared With Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Standard in Normal Subjects, Glaucoma Suspects, and Patients With Glaucoma. Phu J; Khuu SK; Agar A; Kalloniatis M Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Dec; 208():251-264. PubMed ID: 31470001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry. Patel A; Wollstein G; Ishikawa H; Schuman JS Ophthalmology; 2007 Mar; 114(3):480-7. PubMed ID: 17123623 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. [Full Threshold vs. SITA in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time]. Schimiti RB; Arcieri ES; Avelino RR; Matsuo T; Costa VP Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2006; 69(2):145-50. PubMed ID: 16699660 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer. Hirasawa K; Shoji N Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Bourne RR; Jahanbakhsh K; Boden C; Zangwill LM; Hoffmann EM; Medeiros FA; Weinreb RN; Sample PA Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Dec; 144(6):908-913. PubMed ID: 17919445 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. False Positive Responses in Standard Automated Perimetry. Heijl A; Patella VM; Flanagan JG; Iwase A; Leung CK; Tuulonen A; Lee GC; Callan T; Bengtsson B Am J Ophthalmol; 2022 Jan; 233():180-188. PubMed ID: 34283973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm. Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. Liu S; Lam S; Weinreb RN; Ye C; Cheung CY; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(10):7325-31. PubMed ID: 21810975 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms. Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Sekhar GC; Naduvilath TJ; Lakkai M; Jayakumar AJ; Pandi GT; Mandal AK; Honavar SG Ophthalmology; 2000 Jul; 107(7):1303-8. PubMed ID: 10889102 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Validation of the SITA faster strategy for the management of glaucoma. RodrÃguez-Agirretxe I; Loizate E; Astorkiza B; Onaindia A; Galdos-Olasagasti L; Basasoro A Int Ophthalmol; 2022 Aug; 42(8):2347-2354. PubMed ID: 35072855 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors. Singh MD; Jain K Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]