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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37578428)

  • 1. Detectability of Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma Using Moving Versus Static Stimuli for Perimetry.
    Gardiner SK; Mansberger SL
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2023 Aug; 12(8):12. PubMed ID: 37578428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Moving Stimulus Perimetry: A New Functional Test for Glaucoma.
    Gardiner SK; Mansberger SL
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2022 Oct; 11(10):9. PubMed ID: 36201198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry.
    Katz J; Tielsch JM; Quigley HA; Sommer A
    Ophthalmology; 1995 Jan; 102(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 7831036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Suprathreshold static perimetry in glaucoma and other optic nerve disease.
    Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Balestrery FG
    Ophthalmology; 1979 Jul; 86(7):1278-86. PubMed ID: 233860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Threshold Automated Perimetry of the Full Visual Field in Patients With Glaucoma With Mild Visual Loss.
    Wall M; Lee EJ; Wanzek RJ; Zamba KD; Turpin A; Chong LX; Marin-Franch I
    J Glaucoma; 2019 Nov; 28(11):997-1005. PubMed ID: 31567907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry for detection of the development of visual field defects in glaucoma suspect eyes: a prospective study.
    Liu S; Yu M; Weinreb RN; Lai G; Lam DS; Leung CK
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2014 Jan; 132(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 24177945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of Quality and Output of Different Optimal Perimetric Testing Approaches in Children With Glaucoma.
    Patel DE; Cumberland PM; Walters BC; Russell-Eggitt I; Brookes J; Papadopoulos M; Khaw PT; Viswanathan AC; Garway-Heath D; Cortina-Borja M; Rahi JS;
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Feb; 136(2):155-161. PubMed ID: 29285534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Random dot motion stimuli are more sensitive than light stimuli for detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension patients.
    Wall M; Jennisch CS
    Optom Vis Sci; 1999 Aug; 76(8):550-7. PubMed ID: 10472961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparison of defect depths for sinusoidal and circular perimetric stimuli in patients with glaucoma.
    Swanson WH; King BJ
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2019 Jan; 39(1):26-36. PubMed ID: 30628740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Flicker defined form perimetry in glaucoma suspects with normal achromatic visual fields.
    Reznicek L; Lamparter J; Vogel M; Kampik A; Hirneiß C
    Curr Eye Res; 2015 Jul; 40(7):683-9. PubMed ID: 25207744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Octopus 900 Automated Kinetic Perimetry versus Standard Automated Static Perimetry in Glaucoma Practice.
    Rowe FJ; Czanner G; Somerville T; Sood I; Sood D
    Curr Eye Res; 2021 Jan; 46(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 32564629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients.
    Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Zangwill L; Lee AC; Kono Y; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 10704545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of high-pass resolution perimetry and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
    Martinez GA; Sample PA; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1995 Feb; 119(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 7832226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Objective perimetry in glaucoma.
    Klistorner A; Graham SL
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Dec; 107(12):2283-99. PubMed ID: 11097611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma.
    Pineles SL; Volpe NJ; Miller-Ellis E; Galetta SL; Sankar PS; Shindler KS; Maguire MG
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2006 Mar; 124(3):363-9. PubMed ID: 16534056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Incidence and prevalence of short wavelength automated perimetry deficits in ocular hypertensive patients.
    Demirel S; Johnson CA
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2001 Jun; 131(6):709-15. PubMed ID: 11384565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Total deviation probability plots for stimulus size v perimetry: a comparison with size III stimuli.
    Wall M; Brito CF; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Kardon RH; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2008 Apr; 126(4):473-9. PubMed ID: 18413515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects.
    Bosworth CF; Sample PA; Gupta N; Bathija R; Weinreb RN
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1998 Sep; 116(9):1153-8. PubMed ID: 9747672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of VEP perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
    Bengtsson B
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2002 Dec; 80(6):620-6. PubMed ID: 12485283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.