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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3763131)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Quantitative office perimetry.
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Lewis RA
    Ophthalmology; 1985 Jul; 92(7):862-72. PubMed ID: 4022569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
    Bass SJ; Feldman J
    Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Retest Variability in the Medmont M700 Automated Perimeter.
    Pearce JG; Maddess T
    Optom Vis Sci; 2016 Mar; 93(3):272-80. PubMed ID: 26760578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters.
    Landers J; Sharma A; Goldberg I; Graham S
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jun; 87(6):690-4. PubMed ID: 12770962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Test-retest variability of blue-on-yellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects.
    Kwon YH; Park HJ; Jap A; Ugurlu S; Caprioli J
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1998 Jul; 126(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 9683146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. [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]  

  • 11. Inter- and intraindividual sensitivity variations with manual and automated static perimeters.
    Sucs FE; Verriest G
    Ophthalmologica; 1987; 195(4):209-14. PubMed ID: 3431819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Intratest variability in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.
    Chauhan BC; House PH
    Ophthalmology; 1991 Jan; 98(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 2023738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry.
    Bevers C; Blanckaert G; Van Keer K; Fils JF; Vandewalle E; Stalmans I
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Jun; 97(4):e499-e505. PubMed ID: 30345638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Peripheral visual field thresholds using Humphrey Field Analyzer program 60-4 in normal eyes.
    Berezina TL; Khouri AS; Kolomeyer AM; Clancy PS; Fechtner RD
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2011; 21(4):415-21. PubMed ID: 21279980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automated suprathreshold static perimetry screening for detecting neuro-ophthalmologic disease.
    Siatkowski RM; Lam BL; Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Halikman AM
    Ophthalmology; 1996 Jun; 103(6):907-17. PubMed ID: 8643246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Definition of normal macular thresholds on the Dicon AP2000 autoperimeter.
    Jacobs NA; Harris ML
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1991 Apr; 69(2):253-5. PubMed ID: 1872147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters.
    Hashimoto S; Matsumoto C; Eura M; Okuyama S; Shimomura Y
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2017 Jul; 61(4):299-306. PubMed ID: 28444485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.