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 *

241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7783884)

  • 21. Asymmetric papilledema in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: prospective interocular comparison of sensory visual function.
    Wall M; White WN
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1998 Jan; 39(1):134-42. PubMed ID: 9430554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Parallel rarebits: a novel, large-scale visual field screening method.
    Lin SR; Fijalkowski N; Lin BR; Li F; Singh K; Chang RT
    Clin Exp Optom; 2014 Nov; 97(6):528-33. PubMed ID: 25331077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. The diagnostic value of automated flicker threshold perimetry.
    Rota-Bartelink A
    Curr Opin Ophthalmol; 1999 Apr; 10(2):135-9. PubMed ID: 10537764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Total deviation probability plots for stimulus size v perimetry: a comparison with size III stimuli.
    Wall M; Brito CF; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Kardon RH; Johnson CA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2008 Apr; 126(4):473-9. PubMed ID: 18413515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A new visual field test in empty sella syndrome: rarebit perimetry.
    Yavas GF; Küsbeci T; Eser O; Ermis SS; Coşar M; Oztürk F
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(4):628-32. PubMed ID: 18609487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry.
    Wall M; Woodward KR; Brito CF
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Jan; 45(1):342-50. PubMed ID: 14691193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients.
    Hirasawa K; Takahashi N; Satou T; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N
    Curr Eye Res; 2017 Aug; 42(8):1160-1168. PubMed ID: 28441081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields.
    Riemann CD; Hanson S; Foster JA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Jan; 118(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 10636416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Functional visual loss in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
    Ney JJ; Volpe NJ; Liu GT; Balcer LJ; Moster ML; Galetta SL
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Sep; 116(9):1808-1813.e1. PubMed ID: 19643491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension. A prospective study of 50 patients.
    Wall M; George D
    Brain; 1991 Feb; 114 ( Pt 1A)():155-80. PubMed ID: 1998880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Increased detection rate of glaucomatous visual field damage with locally condensed grids: a comparison between fundus-oriented perimetry and conventional visual field examination.
    Schiefer U; Flad M; Stumpp F; Malsam A; Paetzold J; Vonthein R; Denk PO; Sample PA
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2003 Apr; 121(4):458-65. PubMed ID: 12695242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Rarebit perimetry for bedside testing: comparison with standard automated perimetry.
    Steven Houston SK; Weber ED; Koga SF; Newman SA
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2010 Sep; 30(3):243-7. PubMed ID: 20548245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Short-wavelength sensitive visual field loss in patients with clinically significant diabetic macular oedema.
    Hudson C; Flanagan JG; Turner GS; Chen HC; Young LB; McLeod D
    Diabetologia; 1998 Aug; 41(8):918-28. PubMed ID: 9726594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss.
    Wall M; Doyle CK; Eden T; Zamba KD; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jun; 54(6):3975-83. PubMed ID: 23633660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Field of dreamers and dreamed-up fields: functional and fake perimetry.
    Thompson JC; Kosmorsky GS; Ellis BD
    Ophthalmology; 1996 Jan; 103(1):117-25. PubMed ID: 8628542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Identification of functional visual field loss by automated static perimetry.
    Frisén L
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 92(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 24698019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: a comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation.
    Artes PH; Henson DB; Harper R; McLeod D
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Jun; 44(6):2582-7. PubMed ID: 12766060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry.
    Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Zamba G
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2010 May; 128(5):570-6. PubMed ID: 20457977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.