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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8090462)

  • 21. Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry.
    Morales J; Weitzman ML; González de la Rosa M
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Jan; 107(1):134-42. PubMed ID: 10647732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm.
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A; Olsson J
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1998 Apr; 76(2):165-9. PubMed ID: 9591946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
    Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
    Delgado MF; Nguyen NT; Cox TA; Singh K; Lee DA; Dueker DK; Fechtner RD; Juzych MS; Lin SC; Netland PA; Pastor SA; Schuman JS; Samples JR;
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Dec; 109(12):2362-74. PubMed ID: 12466186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
    Budenz DL; Rhee P; Feuer WJ; McSoley J; Johnson CA; Anderson DR
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 120(9):1136-41. PubMed ID: 12215086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Evaluation of adaptive spatial enhancement in suprathreshold visual field screening.
    Asman P; Britt JM; Mills RP; Heijl A
    Ophthalmology; 1988 Dec; 95(12):1656-62. PubMed ID: 3068604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Motion detection threshold and field progression in normal tension glaucoma.
    Baez KA; McNaught AI; Dowler JG; Poinoosawmy D; Fitzke FW; Hitchings RA
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1995 Feb; 79(2):125-8. PubMed ID: 7696230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients.
    Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Zangwill L; Lee AC; Kono Y; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 10704545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Different strategies for Humphrey automated perimetry: FASTPAC, SITA standard and SITA fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
    Roggen X; Herman K; Van Malderen L; Devos M; Spileers W
    Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2001; (279):23-33. PubMed ID: 11344712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A comparison of false-negative responses for full threshold and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal observers.
    Johnson CA; Sherman K; Doyle C; Wall M
    J Glaucoma; 2014; 23(5):288-92. PubMed ID: 23632399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice.
    Burnstein Y; Ellish NJ; Magbalon M; Higginbotham EJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):328-33. PubMed ID: 10704548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Choosing two points to add to the 24-2 pattern to better describe macular visual field damage due to glaucoma.
    Chen S; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2015 Sep; 99(9):1236-9. PubMed ID: 25802251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Perimetric point density and detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Heijl A
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1993 Aug; 71(4):445-50. PubMed ID: 8249572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Evaluating a visual field screening test for glaucoma: how the choice of the gold standard affects the validity of the test.
    Ellish NJ; Higginbotham EJ
    Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2001 Dec; 8(5):297-307. PubMed ID: 11922383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Suprathreshold Approaches to Mapping the Visual Field in Advanced Glaucoma.
    Denniss J; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
    Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2023 Jun; 12(6):19. PubMed ID: 37358492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer.
    Hirasawa K; Shoji N
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Duration of automated suprathreshold vs quantitative threshold field examination. Impact of age and ocular status.
    Kosoko O; Sommer A; Auer C
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1986 Mar; 104(3):398-401. PubMed ID: 3954641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies.
    Shirato S; Inoue R; Fukushima K; Suzuki Y
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 1999 Jan; 237(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 9951638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry.
    Wall M; Doyle CK; Zamba KD; Artes P; Johnson CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Feb; 54(2):1345-51. PubMed ID: 23341012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Suprathreshold static perimetry in glaucoma and other optic nerve disease.
    Johnson CA; Keltner JL; Balestrery FG
    Ophthalmology; 1979 Jul; 86(7):1278-86. PubMed ID: 233860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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