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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39331457)

  • 1. Humphrey visual field made easy for residents.
    Mansoori T
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2024 Oct; 72(10):1535. PubMed ID: 39331457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of Visual Field Measurement with Heidelberg Edge Perimeter and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in Patients with Ocular Hypertension.
    Kaczorowski K; Mulak M; Szumny D; Baranowska M; Jakubaszko-Jabłońska J; Misiuk-Hojło M
    Adv Clin Exp Med; 2016; 25(5):937-944. PubMed ID: 28028959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peripheral visual field testing in glaucoma by automated kinetic perimetry with the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Ballon BJ; Echelman DA; Shields MB; Ollie AR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1992 Dec; 110(12):1730-2. PubMed ID: 1463413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Agreement of visual field interpretation among glaucoma specialists and comprehensive ophthalmologists: comparison of time and methods.
    Lin AP; Katz LJ; Spaeth GL; Moster MR; Henderer JD; Schmidt CM; Myers JS
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 95(6):828-31. PubMed ID: 20956271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.
    Beck RW; Bergstrom TJ; Lichter PR
    Ophthalmology; 1985 Jan; 92(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 3974997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. High false-positive response in perimetry.
    Mansoori T
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2023 Oct; 71(10):3424. PubMed ID: 37787253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Trigger happy" visual field: Ten pointers.
    Mansoori T
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2022 Dec; 70(12):4471. PubMed ID: 36453381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical Clues to Predict the Presence of Parafoveal Scotoma on Humphrey 10-2 Visual Field Using a Humphrey 24-2 Visual Field.
    Park HY; Hwang BE; Shin HY; Park CK
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2016 Jan; 161():150-9. PubMed ID: 26476213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Red flags and artifacts in perimetry.
    Mansoori T
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2022 Dec; 70(12):4471. PubMed ID: 36453382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of hemifield sector analysis protocol in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry for the diagnosis and early detection of glaucomatous field defects.
    Mousa MF; Cubbidge RP; Al-Mansouri F; Bener A
    Korean J Ophthalmol; 2014 Feb; 28(1):49-65. PubMed ID: 24511212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of different screening methods for the detection of visual field defects in early glaucoma.
    Marraffa M; Marchini G; Albertini R; Bonomi L
    Int Ophthalmol; 1989 Jan; 13(1-2):43-5. PubMed ID: 2744954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Compass fundus automated perimetry.
    Fogagnolo P; Digiuni M; Montesano G; Rui C; Morales M; Rossetti L
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2018 Sep; 28(5):481-490. PubMed ID: 29564933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Recent developments in visual field testing for glaucoma.
    Wu Z; Medeiros FA
    Curr Opin Ophthalmol; 2018 Mar; 29(2):141-146. PubMed ID: 29256895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of visual fields by ophthalmologists and by OCTOSMART program.
    Kaufmann H; Flammer J; Rutishauser C
    Ophthalmologica; 1990; 201(2):104-9. PubMed ID: 2234815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. HPR perimetry and Humphrey perimetry in glaucomatous children.
    Marraffa M; Pucci V; Marchini G; Morselli S; Bellucci R; Bonomi L
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1995; 89(4):383-6. PubMed ID: 7493539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
    Rao HL; Raveendran S; James V; Dasari S; Palakurthy M; Reddy HB; Pradhan ZS; Rao DA; Puttaiah NK; Devi S
    J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Determining progressive visual field loss in serial Humphrey visual fields.
    Birch MK; Wishart PK; O'Donnell NP
    Ophthalmology; 1995 Aug; 102(8):1227-34; discussion 1234-5. PubMed ID: 9097752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance of an iPad Application to Detect Moderate and Advanced Visual Field Loss in Nepal.
    Johnson CA; Thapa S; George Kong YX; Robin AL
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2017 Oct; 182():147-154. PubMed ID: 28844641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of Goldmann III, V and spatially equated test stimuli in visual field testing: the importance of complete and partial spatial summation.
    Phu J; Khuu SK; Zangerl B; Kalloniatis M
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2017 Mar; 37(2):160-176. PubMed ID: 28211185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.