439 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9627854)
1. The efficacy of the dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing.
Huang AS; Smith SD; Quigley HA
J Glaucoma; 1998 Jun; 7(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 9627854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry.
Katz J; Quigley HA; Sommer A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jul; 36(8):1658-64. PubMed ID: 7601645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs.
Bengtsson B; Heijl A
Ophthalmology; 2006 Jul; 113(7):1092-7. PubMed ID: 16815399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison of diagnostic performance and fixation control of two automated perimeters.
Asman P; Fingeret M
J Am Optom Assoc; 1997 Dec; 68(12):763-8. PubMed ID: 9635382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Automated suprathreshold screening for glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey.
Katz J; Tielsch JM; Quigley HA; Javitt J; Witt K; Sommer A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Nov; 34(12):3271-7. PubMed ID: 8225862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
Bass SJ; Feldman J
Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Schaumberger M; Schäfer B; Lachenmayr BJ
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jun; 36(7):1390-7. PubMed ID: 7775117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix.
Matsumoto C; Takada S; Okuyama S; Arimura E; Hashimoto S; Shimomura Y
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Apr; 84(2):210-5. PubMed ID: 16637839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Effects of moderate smoking on the central visual field.
Akarsu C; Yazici B; Taner P; Ergin A
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2004 Aug; 82(4):432-5. PubMed ID: 15291937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
