493 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9040476)
1. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli.
Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):426-35. PubMed ID: 9040476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The psychometric function and reaction times of automated perimetry in normal and abnormal areas of the visual field in patients with glaucoma.
Wall M; Maw RJ; Stanek KE; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1996 Apr; 37(5):878-85. PubMed ID: 8603872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
Chauhan BC; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry.
Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Artes PH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Feb; 50(2):974-9. PubMed ID: 18952921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma.
Chauhan BC; Tompkins JD; LeBlanc RP; McCormick TA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Dec; 34(13):3534-40. PubMed ID: 8258511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual-field defects in open-angle glaucoma.
Clement CI; Goldberg I; Healey PR; Graham S
Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 May; 93(5):582-8. PubMed ID: 18669543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Relationship between Humphrey 30-2 SITA Standard Test, Matrix 30-2 threshold test, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients.
Bozkurt B; Yilmaz PT; Irkec M
J Glaucoma; 2008; 17(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 18414106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Perimetric sensitivity and response variability in glaucoma with single-stimulus automated perimetry and multiple-stimulus perimetry with verbal feedback.
Miranda MA; Henson DB
Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 86(2):202-6. PubMed ID: 18005269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
Spry PG; Johnson CA; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 May; 42(6):1404-10. PubMed ID: 11328758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry.
Johnson CA; Samuels SJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):413-25. PubMed ID: 9040475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Which method of flicker perimetry is most effective for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss?
Yoshiyama KK; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Oct; 38(11):2270-7. PubMed ID: 9344350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses.
Artes PH; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Dec; 46(12):4600-6. PubMed ID: 16303955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in open-angle glaucoma eyes with hemifield visual field damage: comparison of high-tension and normal-tension groups.
Murata H; Tomidokoro A; Matsuo H; Tomita G; Araie M
J Glaucoma; 2007 Jan; 16(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 17224743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma.
Sample PA; Bosworth CF; Blumenthal EZ; Girkin C; Weinreb RN
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jun; 41(7):1783-90. PubMed ID: 10845599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giangiacomo A; Fontana H; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Feb; 143(2):263-271. PubMed ID: 17178091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
