178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7271230)
1. 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]
2. A screening method for chiasmal visual-field defects.
Trobe JD; Acosta PC; Krischer JP
Arch Ophthalmol; 1981 Feb; 99(2):264-71. PubMed ID: 7469863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Hemianopic visual field defects--methods of study and localization problems].
Gloor B; Vollrath C
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1988 May; 192(5):507-17. PubMed ID: 3404961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Visual fields: simplified screening and recording procedures.
Vandeveer MR; Norden LC
J Am Optom Assoc; 1983 May; 54(5):457-64. PubMed ID: 6602825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of an automated confrontation testing device versus finger counting in the detection of field loss.
Bass SJ; Cooper J; Feldman J; Horn D
Optometry; 2007 Aug; 78(8):390-5. PubMed ID: 17662927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Interpretation of visual field defects respecting the vertical meridian and not related to distinct chiasmal or postchiasmal lesions.
Shikishima K; Kitahara K; Mizobuchi T; Yoshida M
J Clin Neurosci; 2006 Nov; 13(9):923-8. PubMed ID: 17085298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Automated perimetry and neuro-ophthalmology. Topographic correlation].
Muñoz Negrete FJ; Rebolleda G
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2002 Aug; 77(8):413-28. PubMed ID: 12185617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Ranking of optic disc variables for detection of glaucomatous optic nerve damage.
Jonas JB; Bergua A; Schmitz-Valckenberg P; Papastathopoulos KI; Budde WM
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jun; 41(7):1764-73. PubMed ID: 10845597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Sensitivity and specificity of the Humphrey Matrix to detect homonymous hemianopias.
Taravati P; Woodward KR; Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Redline D; Carolan J; Huang CQ; Wall M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):924-8. PubMed ID: 18326713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [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]
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. Scanning laser polarimetry of the retinal nerve fiber layer in perimetrically unaffected eyes of glaucoma patients.
Reus NJ; Lemij HG
Ophthalmology; 2004 Dec; 111(12):2199-203. PubMed ID: 15582074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing.
Wall M; Punke SG; Stickney TL; Brito CF; Withrow KR; Kardon RH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Feb; 42(2):528-37. PubMed ID: 11157893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual field defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma?
Ferreras A; Polo V; Larrosa JM; Pablo LE; Pajarin AB; Pueyo V; Honrubia FM
J Glaucoma; 2007; 16(4):372-83. PubMed ID: 17571000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bitemporal visual field defects mimicking chiasmal compression in eyes with tilted disc syndrome.
Sowka JW; Luong VV
Optometry; 2009 May; 80(5):232-42. PubMed ID: 19410228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The four-meter confrontation visual field test.
Kodsi SR; Younge BR
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 1992; 90():373-80; discussion 380-2. PubMed ID: 1494829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Visual field defects in the optic disc drusen].
Obuchowska I; Mariak Z
Klin Oczna; 2008; 110(10-12):357-60. PubMed ID: 19195165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
