228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7258961)
1. Automated perimetry in a neuro-ophthalmologic practice.
Schindler S; McCrary JA
Ann Ophthalmol; 1981 Jun; 13(6):691-7. PubMed ID: 7258961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A clinical comparison of visual field testing between Goldmann-type manual perimetry and the Marco MT-336 automated perimeter.
Jennings BJ; Drake SA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1991 Dec; 62(12):914-22. PubMed ID: 1814984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry.
Agarwal HC; Gulati V; Sihota R
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Dec; 48(4):301-6. PubMed ID: 11340889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Automated and semiautomated perimetry. Comparative trial of 3 devices (Baylor programmer, Friedmann Mark II campimeter, Octopus 2000 R.)].
Pradines F; Delbosc B; Royer J
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1985; 8(2):173-85. PubMed ID: 3891833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [The Fieldmaster-200 computer perimeter: a comparative, controlled clinical study of its sensitivity and specificity in glaucomatous field defects (author's transl)].
Krieglstein GK; Glaab E; Gramer E
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1981 Nov; 179(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 7040780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Matched comparison of Goldmann perimetry and automated two-zone suprathreshold Dicon perimetry in open-angle glaucoma.
Levy NS; Ellis E
Ann Ophthalmol; 1985 Apr; 17(4):245-9. PubMed ID: 4004003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.
Murray IC; Fleck BW; Brash HM; Macrae ME; Tan LL; Minns RA
Ophthalmology; 2009 Oct; 116(10):2017-26. PubMed ID: 19560207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Vigabatrin and visual field defects. A Danish material with evaluation of different screening methods].
Riise P; Fledelius HC; Rogvi-Hansen Bà
Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Mar; 165(10):1034-8. PubMed ID: 12645411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Reliability of successive automated static perimetry].
Wu JS; Wang DB; Wang JH
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2003 Dec; 39(12):731-5. PubMed ID: 14769224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of diagnostic performance and fixation control of two automated perimeters.
Asman P; Fingeret M
J Am Optom Assoc; 1997 Dec; 68(12):763-8. PubMed ID: 9635382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of manual Goldmann and automated static visual fields using the Dicon 2000 perimeter in the detection of chiasmal tumors.
Wirtschafter JD; Coffman SM
Ann Ophthalmol; 1984 Aug; 16(8):733-41. PubMed ID: 6497219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry.
Wall M; Neahring RK; Woodward KR
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Apr; 43(4):1277-83. PubMed ID: 11923276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Perimetry of early glaucomatous visual fields defects. Comparative controlled study using the Goldman and Octopus perimeter].
Krieglstein GK; Schrems W; Gramer E; Leydhecker W
Buch Augenarzt; 1982; 90():23-33. PubMed ID: 7046882
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of tendency-oriented perimetry and dynamic strategy in octopus perimetry as a screening tool in a clinical setting: a prospective study.
Scherrer M; Fleischhauer JC; Helbig H; Johann Auf der Heide K; Sutter FK
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2007 Apr; 224(4):252-4. PubMed ID: 17458786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss.
Nowomiejska K; Vonthein R; Paetzold J; Zagorski Z; Kardon R; Schiefer U
Ophthalmology; 2005 Aug; 112(8):1343-54. PubMed ID: 15996734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Tilted disc syndrome may mimic false visual field deterioration.
Vuori ML; Mäntyjärvi M
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Sep; 86(6):622-5. PubMed ID: 18162059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Component perimetry: a fast method to detect visual field defects caused by brain lesions.
Bachmann G; Fahle M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Sep; 41(10):2870-86. PubMed ID: 10967040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Confrontation visual field techniques in the detection of anterior visual pathway lesions.
Trobe JD; Acosta PC; Krischer JP; Trick GL
Ann Neurol; 1981 Jul; 10(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 7271230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
Wild JM; Kim LS; Pacey IE; Cunliffe IA
Ophthalmology; 2006 Feb; 113(2):206-15. PubMed ID: 16458091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
