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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7443210)

  • 21. Peripheral visual field testing by automated kinetic perimetry in glaucoma.
    Stewart WC; Shields MB; Ollie AR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1988 Feb; 106(2):202-6. PubMed ID: 3341975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.
    Trope GE; Britton R
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1987 Jul; 71(7):489-93. PubMed ID: 3307897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The Peritest automatic perimeter in screening for glaucomatous visual field defects.
    Douglas GR
    Can J Ophthalmol; 1983 Dec; 18(7):318-20. PubMed ID: 6671150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Suprathreshold static perimetry. Initial clinical trials with the Fieldmaster automated perimeter.
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Balestrery FG
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1979 Feb; 97(2):260-72. PubMed ID: 399178
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Automatic perimetry (COMPETER). Ability to detect early glaucomatous field defects.
    Heijl A; Drance SM; Douglas GR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1980 Sep; 98(9):1560-3. PubMed ID: 7425915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
    Bhaskaran K; Phuljhele S; Kumar P; Saxena R; Angmo D; Sharma P
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 69(4):918-922. PubMed ID: 33727459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Psychophysical comparison of four automated perimeters.
    Walters JW; Perrigin D
    Optom Vis Sci; 1993 Mar; 70(3):220-7. PubMed ID: 8483584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A visual field screening protocol for glaucoma.
    Rabin S; Kolesar P; Podos SM; Wilensky JT
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1981 Oct; 92(4):630-5. PubMed ID: 7027800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: II. Statistical analysis.
    Wild JM; Flanagan JG; Barnes DA; Gilmartin BA; Good PA; Crews SJ
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1984 Dec; 58(4):325-40. PubMed ID: 6525935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: III. Clinical analysis.
    Flanagan JG; Wild JM; Barnes DA; Gilmartin BA; Good PA; Crews SJ
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1984 Dec; 58(4):341-50. PubMed ID: 6549288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of a New Head Mount Virtual Reality Perimeter (C3 Field Analyzer) With Automated Field Analyzer in Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders.
    Odayappan A; Sivakumar P; Kotawala S; Raman R; Nachiappan S; Pachiyappan A; Venkatesh R
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2023 Jun; 43(2):232-236. PubMed ID: 36255117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 34. Automated kinetic perimetry with two peripheral isopters in glaucoma.
    Miller KN; Shields MB; Ollie AR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1989 Sep; 107(9):1316-20. PubMed ID: 2783064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: I. Scoring system.
    Flanagan JG; Wild JM; Barnes DA; Gilmartin BA; Good PA; Crews SJ
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1984 Dec; 58(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 6525934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.
    Wilscher S; Wabbels B; Lorenz B
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 248(10):1493-500. PubMed ID: 20232076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical experiences with the use of an automated perimeter (Octopus) in the diagnosis and management of patients with glaucoma and neurologic diseases.
    Li SG; Spaeth GL; Scimeca HA; Schatz NJ; Savino PJ
    Ophthalmology; 1979 Jul; 86(7):1302-16. PubMed ID: 233862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.