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 *

210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9373125)

  • 21. Evaluating the Usefulness of MP-3 Microperimetry in Glaucoma Patients.
    Matsuura M; Murata H; Fujino Y; Hirasawa K; Yanagisawa M; Asaoka R
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2018 Mar; 187():1-9. PubMed ID: 29248331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Validation of a Head-mounted Virtual Reality Visual Field Screening Device.
    Mees L; Upadhyaya S; Kumar P; Kotawala S; Haran S; Rajasekar S; Friedman DS; Venkatesh R
    J Glaucoma; 2020 Feb; 29(2):86-91. PubMed ID: 31790067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Peristat: a computer-based perimetry self-test for cost-effective population screening of glaucoma.
    Ianchulev T; Pham P; Makarov V; Francis B; Minckler D
    Curr Eye Res; 2005 Jan; 30(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 15875358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. SITA-Standard perimetry has better performance than FDT2 matrix perimetry for detecting glaucomatous progression.
    Wall M; Johnson CA; Zamba KD
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2018 Oct; 102(10):1396-1401. PubMed ID: 29331951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry.
    Brusini P; Salvetat ML; Parisi L; Zeppieri M
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2005 Feb; 89(2):180-4. PubMed ID: 15665349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A comparison among Humphrey field analyzer, Microperimetry, and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in the evaluation of macula in primary open angle glaucoma.
    Oztürk F; Yavas GF; Küsbeci T; Ermis SS
    J Glaucoma; 2008 Mar; 17(2):118-21. PubMed ID: 18344757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by nonconventional perimetry.
    Iester M; Altieri M; Vittone P; Calabria G; Zingirian M; Traverso CE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jan; 135(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 12504694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison between MP-1 and Humphrey visual field defects in glaucoma and retinitis pigmentosa.
    Acton JH; Smith RT; Greenberg JP; Greenstein VC
    Optom Vis Sci; 2012 Jul; 89(7):1050-8. PubMed ID: 22733099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.
    Phu J; Wang H; Kalloniatis M
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2024 Jan; 44(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 37803502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Agreement to detect glaucomatous visual field progression by using three different methods: a multicentre study.
    Iester M; Capris E; De Feo F; Polvicino M; Brusini P; Capris P; Corallo G; Figus M; Fogagnolo P; Frezzotti P; Manni G; Perdicchi A
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Sep; 95(9):1276-83. PubMed ID: 21131377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects.
    Fogagnolo P; Modarelli A; Oddone F; Digiuni M; Montesano G; Orzalesi N; Rossetti L
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2016 Nov; 26(6):598-606. PubMed ID: 27375066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Perimetry with a glaucoma-specific test grid. A clinical study with the GG program].
    Roesen B; Gramer E
    Ophthalmologe; 1995 Aug; 92(4):564-73. PubMed ID: 7549349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.
    Goukon H; Hirasawa K; Kasahara M; Matsumura K; Shoji N
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0224711. PubMed ID: 31697732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability.
    Ophthalmology; 1994 Aug; 101(8):1445-55. PubMed ID: 7741836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Short-wavelength automated perimetry in low-, medium-, and high-risk ocular hypertensive eyes. Initial baseline results.
    Johnson CA; Brandt JD; Khong AM; Adams AJ
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1995 Jan; 113(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 7826296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.
    Acton JH; Bartlett NS; Greenstein VC
    Optom Vis Sci; 2011 Nov; 88(11):1288-97. PubMed ID: 21822159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of the high specificity Screening Program (C-20-1) of the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter in clinical practice.
    North RV; Jones AL; Hunter E; Morgan JE; Wild JM
    Eye (Lond); 2006 Jun; 20(6):681-7. PubMed ID: 15999135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Johnson CA; Adams AJ; Casson EJ; Brandt JD
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1993 May; 111(5):645-50. PubMed ID: 8489447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A comparison of the OKP visual field screening test with the Humphrey field analyser.
    Vernon SA; Quigley HA
    Eye (Lond); 1992; 6 ( Pt 5)():521-4. PubMed ID: 1286719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical ability of Heidelberg retinal tomograph examination to detect glaucomatous visual field changes.
    Miglior S; Casula M; Guareschi M; Marchetti I; Iester M; Orzalesi N
    Ophthalmology; 2001 Sep; 108(9):1621-7. PubMed ID: 11535460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.