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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7747575)

  • 1. Red square test for visual field screening. A sensitive and simple bedside test.
    Mandahl A
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1994 Dec; 72(6):683-7. PubMed ID: 7747575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A versatile color confrontation test for the central visual field. A comparison with quantitative perimetry.
    Frisén L
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1973 Jan; 89(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 4684896
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Visual field defects in 169 cases of pituitary adenomas].
    Shen MQ; Ye W; Zhang YY; Chen J
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2009 Dec; 45(12):1074-9. PubMed ID: 20193428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Confrontation test using Bagolini striated glasses--a new screening method for detection of quandrantanopia and hemianopia].
    Jünemann A
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1998 Jun; 212(6):449-53. PubMed ID: 9715465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.
    Shahinfar S; Johnson LN; Madsen RW
    Ophthalmology; 1995 Jun; 102(6):872-7. PubMed ID: 7777293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?
    Szatmáry G; Biousse V; Newman NJ
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1162-73. PubMed ID: 12215089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Rapid confrontation screening for peripheral visual field defects and extinction.
    Anderson AJ; Shuey NH; Wall M
    Clin Exp Optom; 2009 Jan; 92(1):45-8. PubMed ID: 19125747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients.
    Horn FK; Wakili N; Jünemann AM; Korth M
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 240(8):658-65. PubMed ID: 12192460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.
    Topouzis F; Coleman AL; Yu F; Mavroudis L; Anastasopoulos E; Koskosas A; Pappas T; Dimitrakos S; Wilson MR
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 15013863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.
    Johnson LN; Baloh FG
    J Natl Med Assoc; 1991 Oct; 83(10):895-8. PubMed ID: 1800764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Perimetry in young and neurologically impaired children: the Behavioral Visual Field (BEFIE) Screening Test revisited.
    Koenraads Y; Braun KP; van der Linden DC; Imhof SM; Porro GL
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 133(3):319-25. PubMed ID: 25541916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Detection and characterisation of visual field defects using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry in children with brain tumours.
    Murray IC; Schmoll C; Perperidis A; Brash HM; McTrusty AD; Cameron LA; Wilkinson AG; Mulvihill AO; Fleck BW; Minns RA
    Eye (Lond); 2018 Oct; 32(10):1563-1573. PubMed ID: 29880917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Visual field defects in non-functioning pituitary adenomas.
    Thomas R; Shenoy K; Seshadri MS; Muliyil J; Rao A; Paul P
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2002 Jun; 50(2):127-30. PubMed ID: 12194569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial.
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Spurr JO; Beck RW
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1999 Nov; 128(5):543-53. PubMed ID: 10577521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.